PjICkl  si#^- 


Division 


OUTLINES   OF 
THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 


OUTLINES    OF  THE 
LIFE    OF  CHRIST 


/  BY 

V 

W.  SAND  AY,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Litt.D. 

LADY  MARGARET  PROFESSOR  AND  CANON  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH,  OXFORD 

HON.  FELLOW  OF  EXETER  COLLEGE 

FELLOW   OF   THE   BRITISH   ACADEMY 

CHAPLAIN-IN-ORDINARY  TO  THE  KING 


SECOND  EDITION 
REVISED,   IVITH  ADDITIONS 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

1908 


Copyright  iSpg,  1905, 1908  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND 
EDITION 


In  preparing  to  issue  a  second  edition  of  this  little  book, 
the  writer  has  been  very  conscious  that  it  represents, 
not  only  the  general  position  but  the  position  in  his  own 
mind  of  the  years  1898-1899  rather  than  of  1905.  It 
was  explained  in  the  Preface  to  the  First  Edition  that 
he  deliberately  abstained  from  attempting  to  bring  the 
book  really  up  to  date.  His  reasons  for  this  abstention 
were  two :  partly  because  such  advances  as  he  is  able 
to  make  proceed  as  a  rule  by  steps,  and  it  seemed 
better  that  the  steps  should  be  allowed  to  stand  out 
distinctly  than  that  they  should  be  confused  and  obliter- 
ated; and  partly,  it  seemed,  that  the  great  amount  of 
time  that  would  have  been  taken  up  in  re-casting  and 
adapting  the  old  work  would  be  better  employed  upon 
the  larger  undertaking  which  is  promised  for  the  future. 
It  seemed  better  to  look  forward  than  to  look  backward. 
In  the  meantime,  as  some  substitute  for  a  more 
systematic  treatment,  the  writer  may  be  excused  for 
referring  to  his  own  books  and  papers,  written  since 
1899,  which  are  really  grouped  round  the  central  subject 


vi  PREFACE    TO   THE    SECOND    EDITION 

and   were    intended   to   carry   forward   the   study    of    it. 
The  Hst  is  as  follows : 

An  Examination  of  Harnack!s  '  What  is  Christianity? ' 
London:  Longmans,  1901.  A  pamphlet,  out  of 
print. 

Paper  read  at  the  Church  Congress  at  Northampton  on 
'The  Miracles  and  Supernatural  Character   of  the 
Gospels.'     October  1902. 
This  subject  is  taken  up  again  in  The  Criticism  of  the 

Fourth  Gospel,  pp.  169-184. 

Sermon  on  'The  Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,' 
published  in  a  volume  entitled  Critical  Questions. 
London:  S.  C.  Brown,  Langham  &  Co.,  1903. 

Sacred  Sites  of  the  Gospels.  Oxford :  Clarendon  Press, 
1903. 

'  The  Site  of  Capernaum,'  in  The  Journal  of  Theological 
Studies,  V.  42  ff.    October  1903. 

The  object  of  this  article  was  to  retract  a  view  pre- 
viously expressed  and  to  give  a  definite  preference  to 
the  common  identification  of  Capernaum  with  Tell  Num. 

Paper  read  at  the  Church  Congress  at  Bristol  on  'The 
Interpretation  of  the  Gospels  as  affected  by  the 
Newer  Historical  Methods.'    October  1903. 

'The  Injunctions  of  Silence  in  the  Gospels,'  an  article 
in    The    Journal   of    Theological   Studies,    v.  321   ff. 
April  1904. 
This    article    contains    a    criticism    of    Wrede,    Das 

Messiasgeheimnis   ifi   den    jEva?igelien.      Gottingen,    1901. 


PREFACE   TO   THE    SECOND    EDITION  Vii 

The  Criiicisfn  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Oxford :  Clarendon 
Press;  New  York:  Scribner's,  1905.  Eight  lec- 
tures on  the  Morse  Foundation,  delivered  in 
the  Union  Seminary,  New  York.  October  and 
November  1904. 

These  lectures  may  be  taken  as  justifying  the  use 
that  is  made  of  the  Fourth  Gospel;  they  also  discuss 
the  principles  of  criticism,  and  the  way  in  which  criti- 
cism has  been  applied  to  the  Gospel  in  recent  years. 

Paper  read  at  the  Diocesan  Conferences  at  Chichester 
and  Taunton  on  '  The  Gospels  in  the  Light 
of  Recent  Historical  Criticism.'  October  and 
November  1905, 

In  near  proximity  to  some  of  the  above  papers  will 
be  found  others  by  well-known  writers,  dealing  with 
similar  topics  and  in  the  same  general  spirit:  e.g.,  in 
the  Reports  of  the  two  Chiuch  Congresses  at  North- 
ampton and  Bristol,  in  the  volume  Critical  Qiiestiofis 
(sermons  by  Dr.  Swete  and  Dr.  A.  Robertson),  and  in 
The  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies  (especially  an  important 
article  by  Dr.  Chase  on  '  The  Lord's  Command  to 
Baptize,'  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  which  appeared  in  July 
1905).  Mention  should  be  also  made  of  papers  on  the 
Incarnation  by  the  Dean  of  Westminster,  and  on  the 
Virgin  Birth  by  Dr.  R.  J.  Knowling  (both  London,  1903), 
and  of  three  valuable  essays  on  subjects  connected  with 
the  Gospels  by  Drs.  J.  O.  F.  Murray,  F.  H.  Chase  and 
A.  J.  Mason,  in  the  recently  published  Cambridge 
Theological  Essays. 

Two  of  the  papers  in  the  list  given  above  were 
devoted  to  a  survey  of  the  critical  situation  relating  to 
the  Gospels  in  the  years  1903  and  1905;  and  it  has  been 


via  PREFACE    TO   THE    SECOND    EDITION 

tTiought  that  they  might  with  advantage  be  reprinted 
as  Appendices  to  the  present  volume.  It  is  hoped  that 
they  may  serve  to  give  some  account  of  the  course  of 
thought  in  the  last  six  years.  A  few  slight  omissions 
and  alterations  have  been  made  in  the  text,  to  avoid 
repetition.  It  may  also  be  explained  that  the  time 
allowed  for  the  reading  of  the  first  paper  was  limited, 
while  there  was  no  limit  in  the  case  of  the  second. 

A  generous  critic  of  the  book  on  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
in  The  Oxford  Magazwe,  reminded  the  writer  of'  the 
obligation  which  he  has  assumed  by  the  promise  of  a 
larger  work  on  the  Life  of  Christ,  and  seemed  to  think 
of  these  other  publications  as  standing  in  the  way  of 
the  fulfilment  of  that  promise.  The  writer  may,  how- 
ever, be  allowed  to  say  that  he  does  not  himself  regard 
them  in  this  light.  He  is  most  anxious  to  fulfil  his 
promise;  but  he  has  permitted  himself  to  engage  in  these 
apparent  digressions,  at  once  as  a  help  towards 
digesting  his  materials,  and  also  that  he  may  by  these 
means  make  his  larger  work  more  compact  and  con- 
centrated when  the  time  for  it  comes. 


PREFATORY   NOTE. 


The  Publishers  are  of  opinion  that  the  time  has  now 
come  when  it  would  be  right  to  accede  to  a  wish  that 
has  been  expressed  in  various  quarters  for  a  separate 
issue  of  the  article  Jesus  Christ  in  vol.  ii.  of  Dr.  Hast- 
ings' Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  This  volume  appeared  in 
1899  ;  and  it  has  been  thought  best  to  reprint  the  article 
much  as  it  stood,  with  such  amount  of  change  as  is  neces- 
sary to  carry  out  the  principle  of  jnutatis  mutandis,  and 
to  convert  it  into  a  book.  The  writer  is  engaged  upon 
a  larger  work  on  the  same  subject,  which  is  not  likely 
to  appear  for  some  years ;  and  he  thinks  it  better  not  to 
attempt  to  bring  his  first  experiment  more  strictly  up  to 
date,  but  rather  to  leave  it  as  an  expression  of  his  own 
mind  and  of  such  a  view  as  he  was  able  to  form  of  the 
general  position  at  the  time  when  it  was  written,  i.e.  in 
the  years  preceding  1899.  The  principal  addition  to  the 
present  issue  is  the  map,  which  has  been  carefully  pre- 
pared by  Messrs.  W.  &  A.  K.  Johnston,  on  the  basis 
mainly  of  the  map  in  the  writer's  Sacred  Sites  of  the 
Gospels  (Oxford,  1903),  with  improvements  and  with  some 
additions  suggested  by  the  map  to  illustrate  the  article 


X  PREFATORY   NOTE 

Roads  and  Travel,  by  Professors  Buhl  and  W.  M.  Ram- 
say, in  the  Extra  Volume  of  the  Dictionary;  and  also  by 
the  map  accompanying  an  article  on  the  '  Onomasticon  ' 
of  Eusebius  published  in  the  Zeitschrift  d.  Deutschen 
Paldstina-Vereins,  vol.  xxvi.  part  4  (Leipzig,  1903).  The 
map  further  embodies  the  writer's  changed  opinion  as 
to  the  site  of  Capernaum,  explained  in  the  Journal  of 
Theological  Studies  for  October  1903.  It  will  be  under- 
stood that  the  purpose  was  to  illustrate  the  state  of 
Palestine  in  or  near  the  time  of  our  Lord,  and  in  part 
to  connect  it  with  the  Palestine  of  the  present  day.  For 
this  reason  a  few  crusading  or  modern  sites  are  given 
where  there  are  still  notable  ruins.  The  free  use  that 
has  been  made  of  the  map  in  Sacred  Sites  is  with  the  kind 
permission  of  the  Delegates  of  the  Clarendon  Press. 

Oxford,  December  1904. 

N.B.  —  The  abbreviations  in  this  book  are  those  adopted  in 
Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  (New  York :  Charles  Scribner's 
Sons), 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  I. 


PAGB 

Introductory ...i 


CHAPTER  II. 
Survey  of  Conditions .       7 

CHAPTER  III. 
The  Early  Ministry        .....«••      31 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Teaching  and  Miracles •       •       .     65 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Later  Ministry •       •       .119 

CHAPTER    VI. 
The  Messianic  Crisis •       .    139 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Supplemental  Matter:  The  Nativity  and  Infancy   .       .    191 

CHAPTER  VIIL 
The  Verdict  of  History an 


xii  CONTENTS 

APPENDIX   I. 

The  Position  in  1903 243 

APPENDIX   II. 

The  Position  in  1905 252 


OUTLINES    OF 
THE    LIFE    OF    CHRIST 


CHAPTER   I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

§  1.  Method.  —  What  method  is  fittest  for  a  Christian 
writer  to  use  in  approaching  the  Life  of  Christ  ?  There 
is  a  tendency  at  the  present  moment,  on  the  Continent 
perhaps  rather  than  in  England,  to  approach  it  from 
the  side  of  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 
A  conspicuous  instance  of  this  would  be  Baldensperger's 
Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu  (Strassburg,  1888  ;  2nd  ed. 
1892),  a  work  which  attracted  considerable  attention 
when  it  first  appeared.  No  doubt  such  a  method  has 
its  advantages.  It  places  the  inquirer  at  once  at  the 
centre  of  the  position,  and  enables  him  to  look  down 
the  various  roads  by  which  he  will  have  to  travel.  The 
advantage,  however,  is  more  apparent  than  real.  It 
would  hold  good  only  if  we  could  be  sure  of  obtain- 
ing a    far    more   adequate   grasp   of    the   consciousness 


2  INTRODUCTORY 

to  be  investigated  than  on  any  hypothesis  is  Hkely  to  be 
obtained.  On  the  Christian  hypothesis,  frankly  held, 
any  such  grasp  would  seem  to  be  excluded,  and  the 
attempt  to  reach  it  could  hardly  be  made  without  irrever- 
ence. 

It  is  on  all  grounds  a  safer  and  sounder,  as  well  as  a 
more  promising  method,  to  adopt  a  course  which  is  the 
opposite  of  this  —  not  to  work  from  within  outwards, 
but  from  without  inwards  ;  to  begin  with  that  aspect  of 
the  Life  which  is  most  external,  and  only  when  we  have 
realized  this  as  well  as  we  may  to  seek  to  penetrate 
deeper,  allowing  the  facts  to  suggest  their  own  inner 
meaning.  We  may  then  take  in  certain  sidelights 
which  our  documents  also  afford  us,  which,  because 
they  come,  as  it  were,  from  the  side,  are  not  therefore 
less  valuable.  And  we  may  finally  strengthen  our  con- 
clusions by  following  the  history  some  little  way  into  its 
sequel.  In  other  words,  we  shall  begin  by  placing  our- 
selves at  the  standpoint  of  an  observer,  one  of  those 
who  saw  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  in  its  early  stages, 
in  its  development,  and  to  its  close.  When  that  has 
been  fully  unrolled  before  us,  we  can  draw  upon  other 
data  which  are  not  of  this  public  character ;  and  we 
may  further  seek  to  argue  backwards  from  effects  to 
causes. 

By  pursuing  this  method  we  shall  have  the  advantage 
of  taking  the  facts  in  no  imaginary  order,  but  in  the 
order  of  the  history  itself.  We  shall  have  them  dis- 
closed to  us  in  the  same  sort  of  sequence  in  which  they 
were  disclosed  to  the  first  generations  of  Christians  — 
a  method  always  advisable  where  it  can  be  had,  and 
in   this  instance  peculiarly   advisable,  because  both   the 


TRUSTWORTHINESS   OF  THE   MATERIALS  3 

origins  and  the  immediate  sequel  to    the  origins  are  of 
extreme  interest  and  importance. 

We  shall  also  have  the  incidental  advantage  of  fol- 
lowing, not  only  the  historical  order,  but  the  critical 
order  suggested  by  the  documents.  It  was  natural 
that  what  was  transacted  in  public  should  have  the 
fullest  and  the  earliest  attestation  :  it  lay  in  the  nature 
of  the  case  that  some  of  the  details  which  were  most 
significant,  just  because  of  their  private  and  intimate 
character,  should  become  known  only  by  degrees. 
This  state  of  things  is  reflected  in  the  Gospels  as  we 
have  them.  The  common  matter  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  is  also  the  most  public  matter.  It  by  no  means 
follows  that  what  is  peculiar  to  a  single  Gospel  is  by 
that  fact  stamped  as  less  historical :  no  one  would  think 
(e.g.)  of  affirming  this  of  some  of  the  parables  peculiar 
to  St.  Luke ;  but  it  is  fair  to  suppose  that  in  the  first 
instance  it  was  less  widely  diffused.  To  this  class  would 
belong  the  narratives  of  the  Nativity  and  of  the  Infancy./ 
It  will  be  in  some  ways  a  gain  not  to  begin  with  these, 
but  to  let  them  enter  into  the  story  as  they  entered  into 
it  with  the  first  Christians.  More  than  one  point  which 
might  otherwise  perplex  us  will  in  this  way  suggest  its 
own  explanation. 

§  2.  Limits  of  space  do  not  allow  us  to  go  elaborately 
into  the  question  as  to  the  trustworthiness  of  our  l^ 
materials.  It  may  suffice  to  point  to  one  undoubted 
fact  which  furnishes  at  least  a  considerable  presumption 
in  their  favour.  The  apostolic  age  produced  some 
strongly  marked  personalities,  with  well  defined  types 
of   thought   and   phraseology.      Now,   broadly   speaking, 


4  INTRODUCTORY 

these  types  have  left  but  little  trace  upon  the  Gospels. 
The  special  type  characteristic  of  the  Gospels  them- 
selves stands  out  conspicuously  over  against  them. 
We  need  hardly  do  more  than  refer  to  such  very  sig- 
nificant facts  as  that  the  Gospels  alone  contain  specimens 
of  teaching  by  parables ;  that  the  idea  of  the  *  kingdom 
of  heaven '  (or  '  of  God  '),  which  is  quite  central  in  the 
Gospels,  recedes  into  the  background  in  the  writings  of 
the  apostles ;  that  the  same  holds  good  of  that  most 
significant  title  '  Son  of  Man ' ;  that,  on  the  other  hand, 
such  a  term  as  '  justify '  is  rare  and  hardly  technical, 
while  'justification,'  '  sanctification,'  'reconciliation' 
(or  '  atonement '),  and  a  number  of  others,  are  wholly 
absent.  It  may  be  said  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  an 
exception,  that  there  we  have  a  suspicious  resemblance 
to  the  style  and  diction  of  the  Epp.  of  St.  John.  Some 
resemblance  there  is,  and  we  would  not  entirely  reject 
the  inference  drawn  from  it.  But  even  here  the  ex- 
ception is  but  partial.  It  has  often  been  noticed  that 
the  evangelist  scrupulously  confines  his  doctrine  of  the 
Logos  to  the  prologue. 

/  The  writer  of  this  may  be  allowed  once  more  to 
express  the  conviction,*  which  he  believes  that  con- 
tinued investigation  will  confirm,  that  the  great  mass 
of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  had  assumed  its  permanent 
shape  not  later  than  the  decade  60-70  a.d.,  and  that  the 
changes  which  it  underwent  after  the  great  catastrophe 
of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  were  but  small,  and  can  with- 
out difficulty  be  recognized. 

But   the   task  on   which   we   are   at    present   engaged 
must    in    the   main    supply   its   own   vindication.      The 

*  See  the  Bampton  Lectures  for  1893,  p.  286  ff. 


DIVISION  OF  THE   SUBJECT  5 

picture  which  it  is  here  attempted  to  draw  will  com- 
mend itself  so  far  as  it  is  consistent  and  coherent,  and 
no  further.  No  one,  indeed,  expects  in  these  days  the 
formal  and  external  consistency  aimed  at  in  the  older 
Harmonies  ;  but  the  writer  himself  believes  that  in  their  ' 
inner  essence  the  Gospels  are  consistent  and  coherent, ' 
and  if  he  fails  to  convey  the  impression  of  this,  the 
failure  will  be  his  own.  He  is  conscious  of  something 
tentative  in  the  way  in  which  he  has  sought  to  work  in 
data  derived  from  the  Fourth  Gospel  with  those  derived 
from  the  other  three.  But  here,  again,  he  is  giving 
expression  to  the  best  opinion  he  can  form,  and  the 
value  of  that  opinion  must  be  judged  by  the  result. 
Where  he  is  not  satisfied  with  his  own  success,  he  has 
not  hesitated  to  say  so. 

§  3.  To  what  has  been  said  above  it  should  be  added, 
that  if  we  assume  the  standpoint  of  a  spectator,  a  brief 
preface  will  be  needed  to  explain  what  that  standpoint 
is.  In  other  words,  we  shall  have  at  the  outset  to  take 
a  rapid  survey  of  the  conditions  under  which  the  Life  of 
Christ  was  lived,  so  that  we  may  see  to  what  His  teach- 
ing had  to  attach  itself,  and  what  served  for  it  as  a  foil, 
by  way  of  contrast  and  antagonism. 

The  main  divisions  of  our  subject  will  thus  be  — 

I.  Survey  of  Conditions. 
II.  The  Public  Ministry  of  Jesus,  preceded  by  that  of  the 
Baptist. 

III.  Supplemental    Matter,    not   included  in  the    Public  Min- 

istry, and  derived  from  special  sources. 

IV.  The  Verdict  of  History. 


CHAPTER   II. 

SURVEY  OF  CONDITIONS. 

§  4.  The  picture  which  we  form  for  ourselves  of 
Palestine  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  is  apt  to  be  want- 
ing in  play  and  variety.  A  few  strong  and  simple 
colours  are  all  that  are  used ;  we  do  not  allow  enough 
for  their  blending,  or  for  the  finer  and  subtler  tones 
which  mingle  with  them.  We  see  the  worldly 
ambition  of  the  Sadducees,  the  self-seeking  and  for- 
malism of  the  Pharisees ;  over  both,  the  rough  stern 
rule  of  the  Roman;  and  under  both,  the  chafing 
tide  of  popular  passion,  working  itself  up  to  its  out- 
burst of  fury  in  the  Great  War.  Perhaps  we  throw 
in  somewhere  in  a  corner  the  cloistered  communities 
of  the  Essenes;  but  if  so,  it  is  rather  as  standing 
apart  by  themselves  than  as  entering  into  the  general 
life. 

It  is  not  so  much  that  this  picture  is  wrong  as  that  it 
needs  to  be  supplemented,  and  it  needs  a  little  toning 
down  of  the  light  and  shade.  This  is  the  case  especially 
with  the  internal  conditions,  the  state  of  thought  and  of 
the  religious  life. 

7 


8  SURVEY  OF  CONDITIONS 

A.   External  Conditions  :  Government,  Sects, 
AND  Parties. 

§  6.  The  external  conditions  are  so  comparatively 
simple  and  so  well  known  that  a  rapid  glance  at  them 
will  suffice. 

At  the  time  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry,  Judaea  and 
Samaria  were  directly  subject  to  the  Romans,  and  were 
governed  by  a  procurator  (Pontius  Pilate,  a.d.  26-36), 
who  was  to  some  extent  subordinate  to  the  legatus  of 
Syria.  Pilate  had  a  character  for  cruelty  (cf,  Lk  13^), 
And  the  Roman  rule  was  no  doubt  as  a  whole  harsh 
and  unfeeling :  we  read  of  wholesale  executions,  which 
took  the  horrible  form  of  crucifixion.  But  the  people 
whom  Rome  had  to  govern  were  turbulent  in  the 
extreme ;  and  so  far  as  the  Roman  authorities  come 
before  us  in  NT,  we  cannot  refuse  them  the  credit  of  a 
desire  to  do  a  sort  of  rough  justice. 

The  odious  duty  of  collecting  tolls  and  taxes  for  the 
Romans  led  to  the  employment  of  a  class  of  underlings 
(TTcXoivai,  publicant),  who  were  regarded  almost  as  out- 
casts by  their  Jewish  countrymen. 

The  north  and  east  of  Palestine  were  still  in  the  hands 
of  sons  of  Herod.  Antipas  (4  b.c.  to  39  a.d.)  held 
Galilee  and  Peraea ;  and  his  brother  Philip  (4  B.C.  to 
34  A.D.),  Ituraea  and  Trachonitis.  The  name  given  to 
the  former,  '  that  fox '  (Lk  13*^),  will  sufficiently  describe 
him ;  he  was  living  in  open  sin  with  Herodias,  the  wife 
of  another  brother,  but  was  not  wholly  unvisited  by  re- 
morse, and  had  at  least  curiosity  in  matters  of  religion 
(Mk  6^11,  Lk  23^.  His  capital  was  at  Tiberias,  on  the 
Sea  of  Galilee,  and  he  also  held  possession  of  the  strong 


SECTS  AND   PARTIES  9 

fortress  of  Machaerus  *  E.  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Herod  Philip 
governed  his  dominions  quietly,  and  was  the  best  and  most 
popular  of  his  father's  sons. 

§  6.  The  Sadducees  (Zadokite  priests)  consisted 
mainly  of  certain  aristocratic  priestly  families  (Ac  4®) 
who  held  almost  a  monopoly  of  the  high  priesthood, 
and  who  played  an  influential  and  active  part  in  the 
Sanhedrin,  which  under  the  Romans  wielded  consider- 
able power.  They  were  typical  opportunists,  and  were 
bent  above  all  things  on  keeping  their  own  rights  and 
privileges.  Hence  they  were  sensitive  on  the  subject 
of  popular  disorder,  which  was  likely  to  serve  as  an 
excuse  to  the  Romans  for  displacing  them  (Jn  11^). 
It  was  a  coalition  of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  which 
procured  the  death  of  our  Lord,  but  in  the  period  of  the 
Acts  the  Sadducees  were  the  more  active  persecutors. 
Religion  with  them  was  secondary,  but  they  differed 
somewhat  both  in  doctrine  and  in  practice  from  the 
Pharisees  (Ac  23^ ;  cf.  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times,  i. 
314-321,  etc.).  They  did  not  encumber  themselves 
with  the  Pharisaic  traditions,  but  took  their  stand  upon 
the  Pentateuch.  They  were  notorious  for  strictness  in 
judgment. 

As  contrasted  with  the  Sadducees,  the  Pharisees 
(lit.  Separatists  or  Purists)  were  essentially  the  religious 
party.  They  numbered  more  than  6000  {Ant.  xvn.  ii.  4), 
and  were  pledged  to  a  high  standard  of  life  and  scrupu- 

*  In  Ant.  xvnr.  v.  2  Machserus  is  in  the  possession  of  Antipas, 
in  the  previous  §  it  belongs  to  Aretas  ;  but  the  reading  of  this 
latter  passage  is  questionable  (cf.  Schiirer,  NTZG  i.  362  n.  365  n. 
IHJP  I.  ii.  23,  25]). 


to  SURVEY  OF  CONDITIONS 

lous  performance  of  religious  duties  (Mt  23^.  Un- 
fortunately, the  high  standard  was  outward  rather  than 
inward.  The  elaborate  casuistry  to  which  the  Pharisees 
had  recourse  was  used  as  a  means  of  evading  moral 
obligations  (Mk  f-^^  la^"!!,  Mt  23  i^'^),  and  resulted  in 
a  spirit  hard,  narrow,  and  self-righteous. 

Not  exactly  coextensive  with  the  Pharisees,  though 
largely  to  be  identified  with  them  (we  read  of  *  scribes 
0/  the  Pharisees,'  Mk  2^®  RV ;  i.e.  '  scribes  who  belonged 
to  the  party  of  the  Pharisees'),  were  the  Scribes 
(ypa/jufjuiTets,  vo/jllkol,  voixo8iSd<TKaXoi),  or  professed  students 
of  the  law,  who  supplied  the  Pharisees  with  their 
principles.  They  had  to  a  large  extent  taken  the 
place  of  the  priests  as  the  preachers  and  teachers  of 
Judaism.  Their  chief  fields  of  action  were  the  syna- 
gogues and  the  Rabbinical  schools.  The  most  highly 
respected  of  the  scribes  were  the  great  religious  authori- 
ties of  the  day.  It  was  their  successors  who  built  up 
the  Talmud.  There  were  differences  of  opinion  within 
the  body  (e.g.  the  rival  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai, 
contemporaries  of  Herod  the  Great),  but,  without,  their 
tiicfa  were  unquestioned.  This  veneration  was,  as  a  rule, 
only  requited  with  contempt. 

While  the  Pharisees  at  this  date  for  the  most  part 
(though  not  entirely)  held  aloof  from  politics,  on  the 
ground  that  religion  as  they  conceived  it  could  be 
practised  indifferently  under  any  domination,  and  their 
own  experiences  under  the  national  line,  represented 
by  Alexander  Jannaeus,  had  been  the  reverse  of  happy, 
the  mass  of  the  people  were  burning  to  throw  off  the 
yoke  of  the  stranger.  The  party  of  action,  which  was 
prepared  to  go  all  lengths,  was  known  as  the  Zealots. 


SECTS  AND   PARTIES  II 

One  member  of  this  party  was  numbered  among  the 
apostles  (Mt  loS  Mk  3^^  Lk  6'^  Ac  i^^.  In  the  siege 
of  Jerusalem  they  took  the  lead,  and  were  distinguished 
at  once  by  heroic  courage  and  by  horrible  crimes. 

The  dynasty  of  the  Herods  had  from  the  first  claimed 
alliance  with  Hellenic  culture.  The  founder  of  the 
dynasty  had  mixed  with  advantage  to  himself  in  the 
haute  politique  of  his  day ;  and  he  had  signalized  his 
reign  by  buildings  in  the  Greek  style,  but  on  a  scale  of 
barbaric  magnificence.  The  courts  of  the  Herods  must 
always  have  had  a  tincture  of  Hellenism  about  them. 
But  the  reaction  against  this  was  strong,  and  its  influ- 
ence probably  did  not  extend  very  far,  though  it  inspired 
the  historians  Nicolaus  of  Damascus,  Justus  of  Tiberias, 
and  Josephus.  More  likely  to  affect  the  lower  and 
middle  strata  of  the  population  would  be  the  '  Greek 
cities '  founded  by  the  Syrian  kings  before  the  Macca- 
baean  rising,  such  as  the  cluster  known  as  Decapolis, 
for  the  most  part  east  of  the  Jordan,  with  later  founda- 
tions like  the  flourishing  port  of  Csesarea.  But  more 
important  still  would  be  the  influence  of  the  Jews  of 
the  Diaspora,  constantly  coming  and  going  to  the  great 
feasts  at  Jerusalem,  and  with  synagogues  for  their 
special  use  permanently  established  there  (Ac  6^).  The 
greatest  of  the  centres  with  which  the  Jews  were  thus 
brought  in  contact  were  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  And 
there  is  reason  to  think  that  the  amount  of  intellectual 
intercourse  and  interchange  was  by  no  means  incon- 
siderable. 

There  must  have  been  other  foreign  influences  at 
work,  but  rather  by  what  might  be  called  underground 
channels.      The   connexion   of   Palestine  with  Babylonia 


12  SURVEY  OF  CONDITIONS 

and  the  East,  which  goes  back  to  immemorial  antiquity, 
had  been  revived  and  deepened  by  the  Captivity.  It 
was  kept  up  by  intercourse  with  the  Jews  who  remained 
in  those  regions.  But  whether  or  not  they  had  come 
precisely  in  this  way,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Oriental,  and  indeed  specifically  Persian  influences  were 
present  in  the  sect  of  the  Essenes.  The  ceremonial 
washings,  and  the  reverence  paid  to  the  sun,  can 
hardly  have  had  any  other  origin.  The  asceticism  and 
community  of  goods  have  a  Pythagorean  cast,  and  may 
have  come  from  Greece  by  way  of  Egypt,  while  the 
rejection  of  sacrifice  and  what  we  know  of  the  specu- 
lative tendencies  of  the  Essenes  may  well  be  native  to 
the  soil  of  Palestine.  The  Essene  settlements  were 
congregated  near  the  Dead  Sea. 

B.   Internal  Conditions  :   the  State  of  Religious 
Thought  and  Life. 

§  7.  General  Conditions.  —  To  describe  justly  the  state 
of  Judaism  in  the  time  of  Christ  is  a  difficult  and 
delicate  thing.  It  is  too  apt  to  seem  like  an  indictment 
of  the  Judaism  of  nineteen  centuries,  which  not  only 
on  general  grounds,  but  specially  in  view  of  the 
attitude  of  some  Jewish  apologists  of  the  present  day, 
a  Christian  theologian  will  be  loth  to  bring.  He  will 
desire  to  make  all  the  allowances  that  can  rightly  be 
made,  and  to  state  all  the  evidence  (so  far  as  he  knows 
it)  for  as  well  as  against.  But  at  the  same  time  he 
must  not  gloss  over  real  faults  and  defects,  without  a 
statement  of  which  Christianity  itself  can  be  but  imper- 
fectly understood. 


*  RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT   AND   LIFE  1 3 

Truth  does  not,  as  a  rule,  lie  in  compromises.  And 
its  interests  will  be  perhaps  best  served  if  we  set  down 
without  reserve  both  the  darker  and  the  brighter  sides, 
only  asking  the  reader  to  remember  while  he  has  the 
one  before  him,  that  the  other  is  also  there.  That  we 
attempt  this  difficult  task  at  all  is  due  to  no  wanton 
assumption  of  a  right  to  judge,  but  to  the  unavoidable 
necessity  that  what  is  so  intimately  bound  up  with 
history  should  be  seen  in  the  full  light  which  history 
throws  upon  it. 

(a)  The  Darker  Side  of  the  Contemporary  Judaism.  —  As 
we  look  broadly  at  the  religious  condition  of  Pales- 
tine in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  it  was  in  need  of  a  drastic  reformation.  This  is 
the  impression  inevitably  conveyed  by  the  Gospels,  and 
by  the  searching  criticisms  of  St.  Paul.  Nor  is  it 
belied  by  the  witness  of  Josephus,  and  in  particular  by 
the  outbreak  of  untamed  passion,  with  the  horrors  to 
which  it  gave  rise,  in  the  Jewish  War.  And  although 
it  may  be  easy  to  make  a  selection  from  the  Talmud  of 
sayings  of  a  different  character,  it  can  hardly  be  ques- 
tioned that  the  same  source  supplies  proof  enough 
that  the  denunciations  of  the  Gospels  were  not  without 
foundation.  There  is  too  evident  a  connexion  between 
the  inherent  principles  of  Judaism  and  the  defects 
charged  against  it  to  permit  us  to  regard  these  as 
devoid   of  truth. 

(i.)  The  idea  of  God  was  perhaps  the  strongest  side 
of  Judaism,  but  it  was  too  exclusively  transcendent. 
It  had  no  adequate  means  of  spanning  the  gulf  between 
God  and  man.  The  faults  of  Judaism  were  those  of 
Deism.     It  had  one  tender  place,  the  love  of  Jehovah  for 


14  SURVEY  OF  CONDITIONS 

Israel.  But  this  fell  some  way  short  of  the  Christian 
idea  of  the  Father  in  heaven,  the  God  who  not  only 
loves  a  single  people,  but  whose  essence  is  love. 
Judaism  also  largely  wanted  the  mystical  element 
which  has  played  such  an  important  part  in  Christi- 
anity. The  Johannean  allegory  of  the  Vine  and  the 
Branches,  which  agrees  so  closely  with  the  teaching 
of  St.  Paul,  the  whole  conception  of  immanent  divine 
forces  circulating  through  the  organism,  has  no  true 
analogy  in  it.*  (ii.)  But  the  most  disastrous  feature  of 
Rabbinical  Judaism  was  its  identification  of  morality 
with  obedience  to  written  law.  '  Duty,  goodness, 
piety,  —  all  these  are  to  the  Jew  equivalent  terms. 
They  are  mere  synonyms  for  the  same  conception  —  the 
fulfilment  of  the  law.  A  man  therefore  is  good  w'ho 
knows  the  law  and  obeys  it ;  a  man  is  wicked  who  is 
ignorant  of  it  and  transgresses  it '  (Montefiore,  Hibbert 
Lectures^  p.  479).  This  identification  of  morality  with 
law  led  to  a  number  of  serious  evils,  (iii.)  Law  can 
deal  only  with  overt  action.  Hence  there  was  an 
inevitable  tendency  to  restrict  the  field  of  morals  to 
overt  action.  Motive  was  comparatively  disregarded. 
It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  Rabbis  frequently  insist 
on  Tightness  of  motive.  A  religion  which  in  its  Sacred 
Books  included  the  Prophets  as  well  as  the  Law  could 
not  do  otherwise.  But  the  legal  conception  was  too 
deeply  ingrained  not  to  tell  its  tale.  If  it  had  not  been 
so,  there  would  have  been  no  need  for  the  Sermon  on 
the   Mount ;    and   the   address,  '  Scribes   and   Pharisees, 

*  The  comparison  of  Israel  to  a  vine  is  not  unknown  to  Judaism, 
but  in  a  wholly  different  application  (see  Wunsche,  Erl'dut.  d. 
Evang.  on  Jn  15^), 


RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT  AND   LIFE  1$ 

hypocrites,'  would  have  had  no  point,  (iv.)  Another 
consequence  of  the  stress  laid  on  overt  acts  was  the 
development  of  an  elaborate  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
works.  We  need  not  suppose  that  this  doctrine  was 
universally  held  and  always  consciously  acted  upon ; 
but  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there  was  in  Judaism  a 
widespread  opinion  that  might  be  expressed  in  the 
terms,  '  so  much  keeping  of  the  law,  so  much  merit ' ; 
and  the  idea  of  a  '  treasure  of  merit,'  which  each  man 
stores  up  for  himself,  is  constantly  met  with,  (v.)  In 
one  sense  the  keeping  of  the  law  was  very  hard.  The 
labours  of  the  scribes  had  added  to  the  original  and 
primary  laws  an  immense  mass  of  inferential  law, 
which  was  placed  on  the  same  footing  of  authority. 
This  portentous  accumulation  of  precepts  was  a 
burden  'grievous  to  be  borne.'  (vi.)  Not  only  so, 
but  a  great  part  of  this  additional  law  was  bad  law. 
It  was  law  inferred  by  a  faulty  system  of  exegesis. 
Even  where  the  exegesis  was  bo7id  fide,  it  was  in  a 
large  proportion  of  cases  unreal  and  artificial.  But 
there  was  a  great  temptation  to  dishonesty,  for  which 
the  way  was  left  open  by  the  exaggerated  stress  laid  on 
acts,  and  the  comparative  ignoring  of  motive.  In  the 
dead  level  of  written  law  the  relative  degrees  of  obliga- 
tion were  disregarded.  Hence  there  were  a  number  of 
precepts  which  were  positively  immoral  (e.g.  Corban, 
Mk  7"- ^^11).  (vii.)  A  further  defect  in  the  ;  legal  con- 
ception of  religion  was  its  intellectualism.  The  Talmud 
bears  witness  to  what  is  little  less  than  an  idolatry  of 
learning,  and  that,  we  must  remember,  Rabbinical 
learning.  With  religion  converted  into  science,  and 
the  science  in  great  part  no  science,  we  may  well  say, 


1 6  SURVEY   OF  CONDITIONS 

'  If  the  light  that  is  in  thee  be  darkness,  how  great  is 
the  darkness  1 '  The  Scholasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages 
had  no  such  unchallenged  supremacy ;  it  was  not  the 
one  all-pervading  ideal,  (viii.)  For  the  mass  of  the 
population  the  double  law,  traditional  as  well  as 
original,  could  not  but  be  a  burden.  The  accumula- 
tion of  precepts  not  possessed  of  moral  value  is  always 
a  thing  to  be  deprecated.  And  however  much  we  may 
allow  for  the  fact  that  the  observance  of  all  these 
precepts  was  not  expected  of  every  one,  there  still 
remained  enough  to  be  a  real  incubus.  And  yet,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  performance  of  the  full  Pharisaic 
standard  was  not  so  very  difficult  for  persons  of  leisure, 
who  deliberately  made  up  their  minds  to  it.  It  did 
not  mean,  or  at  least  it  might  be  understood  as  not 
meaning,  more  than  a  life  mechanically  regulated. 
But  then  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  existence  of  this 
class,  consciously  setting  itself  above  its  neighbours, 
and  able,  without  any  excessive  strain,  to  make  good 
its  pretentions,  must  have  inevitably  engendered  a 
feeling  of  self-righteousness  or  spiritual  pride.  The 
parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican  (Lk  i8""^^) 
must  needs  have  been  typical,  (ix.)  What  the  Pharisee 
was  to  the  ordinary  Jew,  that  the  Jew  was  to  the  rest 
of  mankind.  However  politically  inferior,  the  Jew 
never  lost  his  pride  of  race,  and  with  him  this  pride  of 
race  was  a  pride  of  religious  privilege.  The  Zealot 
sought  to  translate  this  into  political  domination,  but 
the  Pharisee  was  content  to  retire  into  the  fortress  of 
his  inner  consciousness,  from  which  he  could  look  with 
equanimity  at  the  rise  and  fall  of  secular  powers. 
(x.)   This  particular   form   of   pride   had   a   tendency  to 


RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT  AND   LIFE  I^ 

aggravate  itself  as  time  went  on.  '  To  make  a  fence 
round  the  law  '  was  a  fundamental  principle  of  Judaism. 
And  in  a  like  spirit  the  privileged  people  was  tempted 
to  make  a  fence  round  itself,  and  to  dwell  apart  among 
the  nations.  Institutions  which  had  had  for  their 
object  to  keep  the  nation  clear  of  idolatry,  were  ex- 
tended when  the  dangers  of  idolatry  were  past,  until  it 
required  a  revolution  to  say  with  St.  Paul,  '  There  is 
neither  Jew  nor  Greek.'  (xi.)  Worst  and  most  dis- 
astrous of  all  was  the  tendency  to  fall  back  upon 
national  privilege  as  a  substitute  for  real  reformation  of 
life.  We  can  see  alike  from  the  Gospels  and  from  St. 
Paul  how  constantly  the  Jews  had  upon  their  lips, 
*  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father '  (Lk  3^,  Jn  8^'  ^^, 
Ro  2"'^).  It  is  admitted  that  '  the  Jews  were  some- 
what too  confident  of  their  assured  participation  in  the 
blessedness  of  eternal  life ;  all  Israelites,  except  very 
exceptional  and  determined  sinners,  were  believed  to 
have  their  share  in  it '  (Montefiore,  Hi'M.  Led.  p.  482). 

()8)  The  Brighter  Side  of  the  Contemporary  Juda- 
ism.—  The  above  is  a  long  and  a  serious  catalogue  of 
charges,  partly  resting  upon  the  logic  of  the  creed,  but 
also  too  much  borne  out  by  positive  testimony.  It 
seems  conclusively  to  prove  that  not  only  reformation, 
but  a  thoroughgoing  reformation,  was  needed. 

And  yet  there  is  another  side  which  the  Christian 
teacher  ought  to  emphasize  more  fully  than  it  has  been 
the  custom  to  do. 

(i.)  In   the   first    place,   we    have   to   remember    that 

Judaism   is   professedly  the  religion   of  the   OT.     It   is 

based   upon   a   Book  which   includes   the    Prophets  and 

the   Psalms    (to   use    the   familiar   description   a  potiori 

2 


1 8  SURVEY  OF  CONDITIONS 

parte)  as  well  as  the  Law.  And  however  much 
Judaism  proper  gave  precedence  to  the  Law,  it  could 
not  forget  the  other  parts  of  the  volume,  or  run  wholly 
counter  to  their  spirit.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
even  in  the  Talmud  we  can  see  at  every  turn  how  the 
spirit  of  legalism  was  corrected  by  an  influence  which 
is  ultimately  derived  from  what  are  rightly  called  the 
evangelical  portions  of  OT.  We  shall  see  to  what  an 
extent  Christianity  itself  is  a  direct  development  of 
these. 

(ii.)  The  evidence  of  NT,  severe  as  it  is  upon  the 
whole,  yet  is  not  all  of  one  tenor.  Its  pages  are 
sprinkled  over  with  Jewish  characters,  who  are  men- 
tioned in  terms  of  praise :  Zacharias  and  Elisabeth, 
Simeon  and  Anna,  Nathanael,  Nicodemus,  and  Joseph 
of  Arimathaea,  the  young  ruler,  and  the  scribe  who  was 
pronounced  to  be  '  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God ' 
(Mk  12^).  We  must  not  forget  that  there  are  parts 
of  NT  itseK  which  in  recent  years  have  been  claimed 
by  Christian  scholars  as  thinly  veneered  products  of 
Judaism  (Ep.  of  James,  Apoc).  Whatever  we  may 
think  of  these  particular  instances,  there  are  others 
(such  as  Didache  and  the  Tesiaffients  of  the  Twelve 
Patriarchs)  in  which  it  is  highly  probable  that  a  Jewish 
original  has  been  adapted  to  Christian  purposes.  And 
our  present  investigation  will  bring  before  us  many 
examples  in  which,  while  Christianity  corrects  Jewish 
teaching,  it  nevertheless  takes  its  start  from  it,  and 
that  not  only  from  the  purer  original,  but  in  its  con- 
temporary form. 

(iii.)  The  panegyrists  of  the  Talmud  have  at  least 
right   on   their   side   to   this   extent,  that   single  sayings 


RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT  AND   LIFE  1 9 

can  frequently  be  quoted  from  it  in  disproof  of  the 
sweeping  allegations  brought  against  it  by  its  assailants. 
There  are  grains  of  fine  wheat  among  its  chaff.  Some 
of  these  are  referred,  on  what  seems  to  be  good  autho- 
rity, to  a  time  anterior  to  the  coming  of  Christ.  The 
'  golden  rule '  is  attributed  to  Hillel.  The  story  is  that 
when  Shammai  drove  away  an  inquirer  who  desired  to 
be  taught  the  whole  Torah  while  he  stood  on  one  foot, 
the  man  went  to  Hillel,  who  said :  '  What  is  hateful  to 
thyself  do  not  to  thy  fellow ;  this  is  the  whole  To- 
rah, and  the  rest  is  commentary '  (Taylor,  Pirqe  Aboth, 
p.  37).  Another  great  saying  is  ascribed  to  Antigonus 
of  Soko :  *  Be  not  as  slaves  that  minister  to  the  lord  with 
a  view  to  receive  recompense  ;  but  be  as  slaves  that 
minister  to  the  lord  without  a  view  to  receive  recom- 
pense ;  and  let  the  fear  of  Heaven  be  upon  you '  {ib. 
p.  27).  There  is  a  fair  number  of  such  sayings.  If  we 
take  the  treatise  from  which  the  last  is  directly  quoted 
we  shall  see  in  it  what  is  probably  not  an  unfair  repre- 
sentation of  the  better  Judaism  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
with  its  weaknesses  sufficiently  indicated,  but  with 
something  also  of  its  strength. 

(iv.)  It  is  right  also  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  Judaism 
of  this  date  had  no  lack  of  enthusiasts  and  martyrs. 
Akiba  in  particular,  though  a  Jew  of  the  Jews,  cannot 
but  command  our  admiration  (see  Taylor,  ui  sup. 
p.  67  ff.).  And  in  a  different  category  his  fortitude  is 
matched  by  the  mitis  sapientia  of  Hillel,  of  whom  it  was 
said  that  his  gentleness  brought  men  'nigh  under  the 
wings  of  the  Shekinah '  {ib.  p.  37). 

(v.)  A  favourable  impression  on  the  whole  is  given 
by  the   numerous   pseudepigraphic  works,  which   belong 


20  SURVEY  OF  CONDITIONS 

in  the  main  to  the  two  centuries  on  each  side  of  the 
Christian  era.  The  oldest  parts  of  the  Book  of  Enoch 
may  possibly  be  earlier,  just  as  some  outlying  members 
of  the  Baruch  literature  are  probably  later.  The  most 
typical  writings  are  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the  Psalms 
of  Solomon  (which  can  be  dated  with  tolerable  cer- 
tainty B.C.  70-40),  the  Book  of  Jubilees  and  the  As- 
sumption of  Moses  (which  may  be  taken  as  roughly 
contemporary  with  the  founding  of  Christianity),  and 
the  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra  (2  Es)  and  the  Apoc.  of 
Baruch,  both  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  a.d.  70. 
These  writings  show  in  varying  degrees  most  of  the 
characteristic  infirmities  of  Judaism,  but  they  also 
show  its  nobler  features  in  a  way  which  sometimes, 
and  especially  in  the  two  latest  works,  throws  the 
infirmities  into  the  shade.* 

It  is  a  moot  point  how  far  the  pseudepigrapha  can  be  taken  as 
representative  of  the  main  currents  of  Judaism.  Montefiore, 
writing  in  1892,  says,  'It  must  be  remembered  that  the  apocalyptic 
writings  lie  for  the  most  part  outside  the  line  of  the  purest  Jewish 
development,  and  often  present  but  the  fringe  or  excrescence, 
and  not  the  real  substance  of  the  dominating  religious  thought ' 
{Hibb.  Led.  p.  467).  On  the  other  hand,  Charles  has  no  difficulty 
in  assigning  the  different  portions  to  recognized  party  divisions  in 
Judaism.  Schiirer  in  like  manner  describes  their  standpoint  as 
that  of  '  correct  Judaism,'  adding,  however,  that  they  are  '  not 
products  of  the  school,  but  of  free  religious  individuality '  {H/P 
in.  ii.  49).  Similarly,  Baldensperger  speaks  of  4  Ezra  and  Baruch 
as  free  from  the  spirit  of  casuistry,  and  not  '  absorbed  in  the 
Halachic  rules'   (p.  35,  ed.   i).     This   verdict  would   apply  in   some 

*  For  a  closer  and  more  exact  but  still  tentative  analysis  and  dating, 
the  reader  may  be  referred  to  the  editions  by  R.  H.  Charles  of  Enoch 
(1893),  Secrets  of  Enoch  and  Apoc.  of  Baruch  (1896),  Assumption  of 
Moses  (1897)  ;  or  for  a  judicious  representation  of  average  opinion,  to 
Schiirer,  HJP  II.  iii.  54  ff . 


RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT   AND   LIFE  21 

degree  to  this  class  of  literature  generally.  It  is  perhaps  in  the 
main  of  provincial  origin,  or  at  least  somewhat  outside  the  beaten 
tracks  of  Jewish  teaching.  The  Pss.  of  Solomon  and  Bk.  of 
Jubilees  would  be  nearest  to  these.  It  is  very  probable  that  4  Ezr 
and  Apoc.  Bar  were  directly  affected  by  the  ferment  of  thought 
caused  by  the  birth  of  Christianity. 

When  we  endeavour  to  put  together  the  impressions 
which   we   derive   from   these   various   sources,  we   may 
perhaps  say  that   the  outcome  of   them  is  that   Judaism 
at   the  Christian  era  had  all   the  outer  framework  of   a    I 
sound  religion  if   only  the  filling  in  had   been  different.    I 
The  Jew  knew  better  than  any  of  his  contemporaries  in 
Greece  or  Rome  or  in  the  East  what  religion  was.     He 
had  a  truer  conception  of  God,  and  of  the  duty  of  man 
towards  God ;   but  on  the  first   head   he  had  much  still 
to  learn,  and  on  the  second   he  had  many  faults   to   be/ 
corrected  in  the  working  out  of  detail. 

The  Jew  had  at  least  a  profound  seriousness  on  the 
subject  of  religion.  Where  this  was  wanting,  the  man 
was  no  true  Jew.  And,  even  allowing  for  all  the  ex- 
ternal influences  which  told  against  this,  there  was 
among  the  Jews  probably  less  of  professed  atheism, 
indifference,  levity,  than  there  has  ever  been  in  any 
other  society,  ancient  or  modern.  The  Jev/  had  also 
an  intense  feeling  of  loyalty  to  this  society.  His  love  of 
what  we  should  call  his  Church  rose  to  a  passion.  It 
is  this  which  makes  the  apocalypses  which  followed  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  so  pathetic.  The  faith  of  men  has 
probably  seldom  received  a  shock  so  severe.  The  au- 
thors of  these  apocalypses  feel  the  shock  to  the 
uttermost.  They  grope  about  anxiously  to  find  the 
meaning  of  God's  mysterious  dealings ;  but  their  faith 
in    Him     is     unshaken.      They    are     divided     between 


22  SURVEY  OF  CONDITIONS 

passionate  grief  and  resignation :  '  Two  things  vehe- 
mently constrain  me :  for  I  cannot  resist  thee,  and  my 
soul,  moreover,  cannot  behold  the  evils  of  my  mother ' 
(Apoc.  Bar  3^). 

§  8.  The  Special  Seed-plot  of  Christianity.  —  In  general 
terms  it  may  be  said  that  when  we  seek  for  affinities  to 
Christianity  we  find  more  of  them  the  farther  we  recede 
from  the  centre  of  official  Judaism.  The  one  thing  to 
which  Christianity  is  most  opposed  is  the  hard,  dry, 
casuistic  legalism  of  the  Pharisee.  If  we  are  right  in 
thinking  of  the  apocalyptic  literature  as  in  the  main 
provincial,  we  shall  not  be  surprised  to  find  the  points 
of  contact  with  it  become  more  numerous.  Wherever 
there  are  traces  of  a  fresher  and  deeper  study  of  the 
Psalms  and  Prophets,  there  we  have  a  natural  kinship 
for  the  Christian  spirit. 

Now  there  is  one  class  among  whom  this  continuity 
with  Psalms  and  Prophets  is  specially  marked.  It  has 
been  observed*  that  there  is  a  group  of  Psalms  (of 
which  perhaps  9.  10.  22.  25.  35.  40.  69.  109  are  the 
most  prominent)  in  which  the  words  translated  in  EV 
'poor,'  'needy,'  'humble,'  'meek'  are  of  specially 
frequent  occurrence.  It  appears  that  these  words  have 
acquired  a  moral  meaning.  From  meaning  originally 
.  those  who  are  '  afflicted  '  or  '  oppressed '  (by  men),  they 
'  have  come  to  mean  those  who  in  their  oppression  have 
drawn  nearer  to  God  and  leave  their  cause  in  His  hands. 
They  are  the  pious  Israelites  who  suffer  from  the 
tyranny  of  the  heathen  or  of   their  worldly  countrymen, 

*  See  esp.  Rahlfs,  'JV  und  i)V  in  den  Psalmen,  Gottingen,  1S92  ;  and 
Driver,  Parallel  Psalter,  Oxf.  1898,  Glossary,  s.v.  'poor.' 


THE   SPECIAL   SEED-PLOT  OF  CHRISTIANITY        23 

and  who  refuse  to  assert  themselves,  but  accept  in  a 
humble  spirit  the  chastening  sent  by  God.  As  there 
were  many  such  in  every  period  of  the  history  of  Israel, 
they  might  be  said  to  form  a  class.  Now  there  is  other 
evidence  that  this  class  still  existed  at  the  Christian  era. 
They  are  the  mansueti  et  quiescentes  of  4  Ezr  (2  Es)  11*^. 
They  are  just  the  class  indicated  in  Ps-Sol  5^^^*^^  '  Who 
is  the  hope  of  the  needy  and  the  poor  beside  thee,  O 
Lord  ?  And  thou  wilt  hearken :  for  who  is  gracious 
and  gentle  but  thou  ?  Thou  makest  glad  the  heart  of 
the  humble  by  opening  thine  hand  in  mercy.'  (Com- 
pare also  the  reff.  in  Ryle  and  James,  p.  48,  and  Index, 
s.v.  TTTwxos).  The  special  NT  designation  is  7rTa);(ot 
T^  TTvevfiaTi  (Mt  5^).  And  a  better  expression  of  the 
spirit  in  question  could  not  easily  be  found  than  the 
Magnificat  (Lk  i**^^).  It  is  clear  that  the  group  which 
appears  in  Lk  i.  2,  not  only  Joseph  and  Mary,  but 
Zacharias  and  Elisabeth,  Simeon  and  Anna,  all  answer 
to  this  description.  They  are  those  who  look  for  'the 
consolation  of  Israel,'  '  the  redemption  of  Israel '  (Lk 
225. 38^^  ^j^jj  ^]^Q  looked  for  it  rather  by  fasting  and 
prayer  than  by  any  haste  to  grasp  the  sword.  There 
was  no  organized  party,  no  concerted  policy ;  but  we 
cannot  doubt  that  there  were  many  devout  souls 
scattered  throughout  the  country,  and  in  just  the  kind 
of  distribution  which  the  chapters  Lk  i.  2  would 
suggest,  some  for  shorter  or  longer  periods  making 
their  way  to  Jerusalem,  but  the  greater  number  dis- 
persed over  such  secluded  districts  as  the  '  highlands ' 
(^  opuvT],  Lk  i^^)  of  Judaea  and  Galilee. 

Here  was  the  class  which  seemed,  as  it  were,  specially 
prepared  to  receive  a  new  spiritual  impulse  and  to  take 


24  SURVEY  OF  CONDITIONS 

up  a  great  movement  of  reformation.  And  other  ten- 
dencies were  in  the  air  which  were  ready  to  contribute 
to  the  spread  of  such  a  movement  when  it  came.  The 
labours  of  the  scribes  had  not  been  all  wasted.  There 
is  a  good  example  in  Mk  12^^^^  —  the  happy  combination 
of  Dt  4^  with  Lv  19'*  —  which  shows  that  even  among 
the  Rabbis  there  were  some  who  were  feeling  their  way 
towards  the  more  penetrating  teaching  of  Jesus. 

One  great  transition  had  been  made  since  Ezk  18. 
The  value  of  the  individual  soul  was  by  this  time  fully 
reahzed.  The  old  merging  of  the  individual  in  the 
family  and  the  clan  had  been  fully  left  behind.  Another 
germ  contained  in  the  teaching  of  the  prophets  had 
been  developed.  We  can  see  from  the  case  of  the 
Essenes  that  men's  minds  were  being  prepared  for  the 
abolition  of  animal  sacrifices,  and  along  with  the  aboli- 
tion of  sacrifice  for  an  end  to  the  localized  worship  of 
the  temple.  The  great  extension  of  the  synagogue 
services  would  contribute  to  the  same  result. 

The  proselytizing  zeal  which  the  latter  Judaism  had 
displayed  (Mt  23'^)  operated  in  several  ways.  It  was  a 
step  in  the  direction  of  the  ultimate  evangelizing  of  the 
Gentiles.  It  had  created  a  class  in  which  the  liberal 
influences  of  Graeco-Roman  education  prevented  the 
purer  principles  of  OT  from  lapsing  into  Judaic  narrow- 
ness and  formalism,  and  in  which  it  was  therefore 
natural  that  Christianity  should  strike  root.  We  meet 
with  specimens  of  this  class  in  the  Gospels  (Lk  7""'''||, 
Mk  15^^11)  as  well  as  in  the  Acts.  And  not  only  was 
there  created  a  class  of  recipients  for  the  gospel,  but  in 
the  effort  to  meet  the  demands  of  these  converts  from 
paganism  there  was  a  tendency  to  tone  down  and  throw 


THE   MESSIANIC   EXPECTATION  2  5 

into  the  background  the  more  repellent  features  of 
Judaism.  If  it  is  true,  as  it  probably  is,  that  the 
so-called  Didache  is  a  Christian  enlargement  of  what 
was  originally  a  Jewish  manual  for  proselytes,  it  would 
be  a  good  illustration  of  this  process. 

§  9.  The  Messianic  Expectation.  —  But  by  far  the  most 
important  of  all  the  preparations  for  the  gospel,  nega- 
tive as  well  as  positive,  both  as  demanding  correction 
and  as  leading  up  to  fulfilment,  was  the  growth  of  the 
Messianic  expectation,  with  the  group  of  doctrines 
which  went  along  with  it. 

The  more  the  stress  of  the  times  was  felt,  and  the 
more  hopeless  it  seemed  that  any  ordinary  development 
of  events  could  rescue  the  Jewish  people  from  its 
oppressors,  the  more  were  its  hopes  thrown  into  the 
future  and  based  upon  the  direct  intervention  of  God. 
The  starting-point  of  these  hopes  was  the  great  pro- 
phecy in  Dn  7.  The  world  empires,  one  succeeding 
another,  and  all  tyrannizing  over  the  Chosen  People, 
were  to  be  judged,  and  Israel  at  last  was  to  enter  on 
the  dominion  reserved  for  it.  The  figure  of  the  Son  of 
Man  who  appears  before  the  Ancient  of  days  (Dn  7^^*) 
was  not  in  the  first  instance  a  person  :  it  was  a  collec- 
tive expression,  equivalent  to  the  '  saints  of  the  Most 
High  '  in  v.^'.  The  form  of  a  '  man  '  is  taken  in  con- 
trast to  the  '  beasts,'  which  represent  in  the  context  the 
dynasties  of  the  oppressors.  In  conflict  with  the  last 
of  these  Israel  is  at  first  to  be  hard  pressed,  but  God 
Himself  will  interpose  by  an  act  of  divine  judgment ; 
the  enemy  will  be  crushed,  and  there  will  be  given  to 
Israel  a  kinofdom  which  is  universal  and  eternal. 


26  SURVEY  OF  CONDITIONS 

This  dominion  is  Israel's  by  right.  It  had  not  only 
been  repeatedly  promised  from  Abraham  onwards,  but 
it  had  been  earned  as  a  matter  of  desert.  It  was  the 
complement  of  Israel's  possession  of  the  law.  By  its 
observance  of  the  law  Israel  had  acquired  a  right  which 
no  other  nation  could  acquire.  In  the  compact  or 
covenant  between  Israel  and  Jehovah,  Israel  was  doing 
its  part,  and  it  remained  for  God  to  do  His. 

The  grand  catastrophe  by  which  this  was  to  be 
brought  about,  the  Tre/jiTrcVeta  in  the  tragedy  of  the 
nations,  was  to  culminate  in  an  act  of  judgment.  The 
day  of  the  Lord,  conceived  of  by  the  prophets  at  first 
as  a  decisive  battle  in  which  God  intervenes,  gives  place 
to  a  judicial  act  in  which  those  who  have  oppressed 
His  people  are  called  to  account,  and  the  parts  of 
oppressor  and  oppressed  are  reversed.  To  complete 
the  justice  of  the  case,  those  of  the  saints  who  have 
died  in  the  times  of  distress  must  not  be  left  out.  There 
must  be  a  resurrection.  And  the  resurrection  will 
usher  in  for  them  a  state  of  lasting  joy  and  felicity. 
Nature  would  share  with  man.  There  would  be  a 
'  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth.'  The  tendency  was  to 
conceive  of  these  somewhat  literally  and  materially. 
Elaborate  but  at  the  same  time  prosaic  pictures  are 
given  of  the  inexhaustible  plenty  which  the  saints  {i.e. 
Israel  as  a  people)  are  to  enjoy.  Their  bliss  is  also 
sometimes  compared  to  a  great  feast  (cf.  Lk  14^^). 

In  the  Book  of  Daniel,  and,  as  it  would  seem  for 
some  time  afterwards,  the  reign  of  the  saints  is  con- 
ceived impersonally.  It  is  the  dominion  of  Israel,  the 
Chosen  People.  But  gradually  there  arises  a  tendency 
to  go  back  to  a  more  primitive  stage  of  prophecy,  and 


THE  MESSIANIC  EXPECTATION  2'J 

to  see  the  kingdom  as  concentrated  in  the  person  of  its 
King:  there  is  a  personal  Messiah.  This  is  conspicu- 
ously the  case  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  (17.  18),  the 
date  of  which  is  fixed  between  B.C.  70-40.  The  right- 
eous King  who  is  to  rule  over  the  nations  is  the  Davidic 
King  of  the  elder  prophets.  A  personal  King  is  also 
implied  in  Orac.  Sibyll.  iii.  49  f.,  652-656.  In  the 
middle  section  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  (chs.  37-71),  which 
is  also  probably  pre-Christian,  the  title  *  Son  of  Man  ' 
is  taken  up  from  Daniel  and  distinctly  identified  with 
a  person.  Here,  too,  as  in  Orac.  Sibyll.  iii.  286,  and 
Apoc.  Bar  72^"^,  the  Messiah  is  not  only  King  but 
Judge  (cf.  Enoch  45^  62*"^^  69^).  The  execution  of 
the  judgment  is  handed  over  to  Him  by  God.  There 
is  not  absolute  unity  of  view.  Sometimes  judgment  is 
carried  out  by  the  Messiah,  sometimes  by  God  Himself 
{e.g.  Enoch  go^*"'^,  Ass.  Mos.  10^^").  There  is  also 
some  diversity  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  resurrec-  I 
tion  is  to  be  of  the  righteous,  of  Israel,  or  of  allj 
mankind.  One  view  is  that  there  are  to  be  two  resur- 
rections, with  a  millennial  reign  between  them. 

The  Sadducees  held  aloof  from  the  Messianic  ex- 
pectation to  which  they  were  not  clearly  compelled  by 
the  few  allusions  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  which  would 
have  been  only  a  disturbing  element  in  their  policy  of 
making  the  best  —  for  themselves  —  of  things  as  they 
were.  Some  of  the  scribes  must  have  also  done  what 
they  could  to  discourage  the  belief.  It  is  well  known 
that  Hillel  is  said  to  have  asserted  that  the  prophecies 
of  the  Messiah  were  fulfilled  in  Hezekiah.  But  there  is 
abundant  evidence  that  in  spite  of  this  the  expectation 
was   widely   diffused.      It    must    have    been    constantly 


28  SURVEY   OF  CONDITIONS 

preached  in  the  synagogues  of  Palestine,  and  it  cer- 
tainly took  a  strong  hold  of  the  popular  mind.  It  was 
differently  received  and  understood  by  different  hearers. 
With  some  quiet  God-fearing  souls,  '  poor  in  spirit ' 
like  those  who  come  before  us  at  the  beginning  of  the 
evangelical  narrative  in  Lk  i.  2,  it  was  cherished 
secretly  with  awed  and  wistful  longing  (Lk  2^-  ^. 
With  the  mass  of  the  population,  as  well  teachers  as 
taught,  it  took  its  place  only  too  easily  among  the 
body  of  hard,  narrow,  materialized  beliefs  which  were 
so  characteristic  of  the  time  —  a  visible  earthly  kingdom 
reserved  for  Israel  as  its  right,  and  carrying  with  it 
domination  over  other  nations,  with  such  unlimited 
command  of  enjoyment  as  a  sovereign  people  might 
expect  under  conditions  specially  created  for  its  benefit : 
all  this  introduced  by  supernatural  means,  wielded  by 
One  who  is  variously  called  '  Messiah  '  or  '  Anointed,' 
'the  righteous  King,'  'the  Elect'  or  'Son  of  Man,' 
not  (if  the  question  were  pressed)  in  the  strict  sense 
God,  though  endowed  by  God  with  plenary  powers,  a 
fit  Head  for  the  Chosen  People  in  its  golden  age,  which 
was  at  last  about  to  begin.  And  scattered  among 
these  masses  there  were  many  —  some  banded  together 
under  the  name  of  Zealots,  and  thousands  more  who 
were  ready  to  join  them  at  the  first  signal  —  men  not 
of  dreams  but  of  action,  who  were  only  waiting  for  the 
leader  and  the  hour  to  put  their  hand  to  the  sword 
and  rise  in  revolt  against  the  hated  foreigners  who 
oppressed  them,  prepared  to  take  a  fearful  ven- 
geance, and  proud  in  the  thought  that  in  doing  so 
they  would  be  '  doing  God  service '  and  establishing 
His  kingdom. 


THE   MESSIANIC   EXPECTATION  29 

Literature.  —  Vast  stores  of  ordered  material  are  contained  in 
Schiirer's  great  work  originally  called  Neutest.  Zeitgeschichte  {NTZG), 
and  now  as  in  the  Eng.  tr.,  Hisi.  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of 
Jesus  Christ  (^HJF).  The  Eng.  tr.  from  the  2nd  much  enlarged  ed. 
came  out  in  1885-90;  a  3rd  ed.,  still  further  enlarged,  has  begun  to 
appear  (vols.  ii.  and  iii.,  1898).  The  late  Dr.  Edersheim's  Life  and 
Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah  (revised  eds.  from  1886)  is  also  full  of  illus- 
trative matter.  Other  works  by  the  same  author  may  also  be  con- 
sulted; esp.  History  of  the  Jewish  Nation  after  the  Destruction  of 
Jerusalem  under  Titus  (2nd  ed.  carefully  revised  by  H,  A.  White, 
1896).  Another  very  useful  work  is  Weber's  System  d.  altsynagog. 
Paldst.  Theol.,  now  called  JiidischeTheologie  (2nd  ed.,  somewhat  im- 
proved, 1897).  As  there  is  always  a  danger  of  confusing  Jewish  teaching 
of  very  different  dates,  this  book  should  be  checked  as  far  as  possi- 
ble by  comparison  with  the  Pseudepigrapha,  Philo,  NT,  and  the  early 
Talmudic  work  Pirqe  Aboth  (^Sayings  of  the  Jetvish  Fathers,  ed.  Taylor, 
1877,  and  enlarged  in  1897).  To  these  authorities  should  now  be 
added  G.  Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu  (Bd.  i.  1898/;?.;  Eng.  tr.,  The 
Words  of  Jesus,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1902),  the  most  critical  and  scientific 
examination  of  the  leading  conceptions  of  the  Gospels  that  has  yet 
appeared. 

Mention  may  be  made  among  older  works  of  Drummond's  Jewish 
Messiah  (1877)  and  Stanton's  Jewish  and  Christian  Messiah  (1887). 
Hausrath's  NT  Times  (Eng.  tr.  1878-80)  is  picturesquely  written,  but 
far  less  trustworthy  than  Schiirer;  and  Wiinsche's  Neue  Beitrage  2. 
Erl'duterung  d.  Evv.  (1878)  is  much  criticized.  Montefiore's ///i^i^fr/ 
Lectures  (1892)  and  arts,  in  JQR  form  an  attractive  apology  for 
Judaism. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  EARLY  MINISTRY. 

§  10.  We  shall  now  be  in  a  position  to  approach  the 
study  of  the  Public  Ministry  of  our  Lord  in  the  manner 
indicated  at  the  outset.  We  shall  be  able  to  place 
ourselves  at  the  standpoint  of  a  sympathetic  spectator. 
We  shall  have  some  rough  conception  of  the  kind  of 
ideas  which  would  be  in  his  mind,  and  of  the  kind  of 
conditions  which  he  would  see  around  him.  We  shall 
thus  be  able  to  follow  the  course  of  the  Public  Ministry 
with  a  certain  amount  of  intelligence.  We  do  not 
as  yet  attempt  to  penetrate  the  whole  of  its  secret. 
Broadly  speaking,  we  suppose  ourselves  to  see  what 
a  privileged  spectator  might  be  expected  to  see,  and 
no  more.  We  reserve  until  a  later  stage  the  introduc- 
tion of  those  special  details  of  illuminative  knowledge 
which,  as  a  matter  of  history,  were  not  accessible  to 
the  first  spectators,  but  were  only  disclosed  after  a 
time.  But  we  hold  ourselves  at  liberty  to  collect  and 
group  the  facts  which  were  not  removed  from  the 
cognizance  of  a  spectator,  in  any  way  tfiat  may  be  most 
convenient  to  secure  clearness  of  presentation. 

31 


32  THE  EARLY   MINISTRY 

It  may  be  well  to  avail  ourselves  of  this  freedom  at 
once,  before  giving  an  outline  of  the  ministry,  to  state 
summarily  certain  conclusions  which  seem  to  arise  out  of 
the  study  of  it.  We  shall  hold  the  threads  in  our  minds 
more  firmly  if  we  see  to  what  results  they  are  tending. 

The  anticipated  conclusions,  then,  are  these :  (i.) 
From  the  very  first  {i.e.  from  the  Baptism)  our 
Lord  had  the  full  consciousness  of  the  Messiah,  and 
the  full  determination  to  found  the  Kingdom  of  God 
upon  earth,  (ii.)  From  the  very  first  He  had  also 
the  deliberate  intention  of  transforming  the  current  idea 
of  the  Kingdom,  (iii.)  In  order  to  make  this  trans- 
formation effective,  it  was  necessary  to  begin  with  the 
idea  of  the  Kingdom  and  not  of  the  King.  In  other 
words,  the  personal  Messianic  claim  had  to  be  kept  in 
the  background.  But  (iv.)  the  transformation  of  the 
idea  was  only  a  preliminary  to  the  permanent  estab- 
lishment of  the  Kingdom ;  and  this  establishment 
turned  round  the  Person  of  the  Messiah.  So  that  in 
the  end  the  history  of  the  Kingdom  centres  in  the 
personal  history  of  the  King. 

With  so  much  of  preface  we  proceed  to  give  an 
outline  of  the  Public  Ministry  according  to  the  periods 
into  which  it  seems  to  fall. 

A.  Preliminary  Period:  from  the  Baptism  to  the  Call 
OF  THE  Leading  Apostles.* 

Scene.  —  Mainly  in  Judaea,  but  in  part  also  Galilee. 
Time.  —  Winter  A.D.  26  to  a  few  weeks  after  Passover  A.D.  27. 
Mt  3I-4I1,  Mk  1I-13,  Lk  3I-4I8,  Jn  16-45*. 

*  The  choice  of  termini  a  quo  and  ad  quern  is  sometimes  inclusive 
and  sometimes  not  inclusive.  The  most  salient  points  arc  chosen. 
Here  the  term,  ad  quern  is  not  inclusive. 


ANTICIPATORY  SURVEY  33 

B.  First  Active  or  Constructive  Period  :  the  Founding  of 
THE  Kingdom. 

Scene.  —  Mainly  in  Galilee,  but  also  partly  in  Jerusalem. 
Time.  —  From  about  Pentecost  A.D.  27  to  shortly  before  Passover 
A.D.  28. 

Mt  4I3-1353,  Mk  ii*-6i3,  Lk  4i*-9«,  Jn  5. 

C.  Middle  or  Culminating  Period  of  the  Active  Min- 
istry. 

Scene.  —  Galilee. 

Time.  —  Passover  to  shortly  before  Tabernacles  A.D.  28. 
Mt  14I-1835,  Mk  6i*-95o,  Lk  9^-^,  Jn.  6. 

D.  Close  of  the  Active  Period:  the  Messianic  Crisis  in 
View. 

Scene.  —  Judaea  (Jn  ']^^-  ii^*)  and  Peraea  (Mk  ioi|l,  Jn  lO*^). 
Time. — Tabernacles  A.D.  28  to  Passover  a.d.  29. 

Mt  191-20^*,  Mk  iqI-^^^  Lk  951-1928  {{qi  the  most  part  not  in 
chronological  order),  Jn  j^-ii^^. 

E.  The  Messianic  Crisis:  the  Triumphal  Entry,  the  Last 
Teaching,  Passion,  Death,  Resurrection,  Ascension. 

Scene.  —  Mainly  in  Jerusalem. 

Time.  —  Six   days   before   Passover  to  ten  days  before  Pentecost 
A.D.  29. 

Mt  2x1-2820,  Mk  11I-168  [i69-20],  Lk  1929-2462,  Jn  12I-2123. 

The  chronology  adopted  in  this  article,  not  as  certain, 
but  as  on  the  vi'hole  the  best  of  current  systems,  is  in 
substantial  agreement  with  that  of  the  art.  Chronology 
OF  THE  New  Testament.  It  dififers  from  that  in  the 
writer's  first  work,  The  Authorship  and  Historical 
Character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  (London,  1872),  by 
placing  the  Crucifixion  in  the  year  a.d.  29  rather  than 
A.D.  30. 

A.  Preliminary   Period  :   from  the  Baptism   to  the 
Call  of  the  Leading  Apostles 

I  11.   Scene.  —  Mainly  Judaea,  but  in  part  also  Galilee. 
,3 


34  THE   EARLY   MINISTRY 

Time.  —  Winter  a.d.  26  to  a  few  weeks  after  Pass- 
over A.D.  27. 

Mt  3^-4",  Mk  i^-«,  Lk  3^-4^^  Jn  i«-4«*. 

The  Public  Ministry  of  our  Lord  begins  with 
His  Baptism,  (i.)  This  will  therefore  be  the 
first  point  to  attract  our  attention,  and  some 
explanation  will  be  needed  as  to  the  Baptist  and 
his  mission,  (ii.)  Along  with  the  Baptism  we 
must  needs  take  the  Temptation,  as  a  glimpse 
vouchsafed  by  Jesus  Himself,  and  early  and 
widely  published,  of  the  principles  which  were  to 
determine  the  nature  of  His  Ministry,  (iii.)  After 
this  will  come  the  first  preliminary  gathering  of 
a  few  loosely  attached  followers,  and  the  first 
miracle  at  Cana  in  Galilee,  (iv.)  Then  the  visit 
to  Jerusalem  for  the  Passover  of  the  year  27,  with 
a  short  stay  in  the  South,  (v.)  Then  we  have  a 
return  to  Galilee,  followed  by  a  brief  period  of 
partial  retirement,  leading  up  to  the  Call  of  the 
four  chief  apostles. 

Allusions,  more  or  less  explicit,  to  the  Baptism 
and  to  the  ministry  of  John,  are  found  in  all  four 
Gospels ;  the  other  events  of  this  period  are 
recorded  only  in  the  fourth  —  unless  we  are  to 
identify  the  Healing  of  the  Nobleman's  Son 
(Jn  4**^)  with  that  of  the  Centurion's  Servant 
(Mt  8"8,  Lk  7"°). 

§  12.  i.  The  Baptist  and  the  Baptism.  —  Our  survey  of 
contemporary  Judaism  has  shown  us  that  *  the  kingdom 
of  God  '  was  a  phrase  in  almost  every  man's  mouth. 
It  meant,  in  point  of  fact,  to  the  majority  *  a  kingdom 


PRELIMINARY   PERIOD  35 

for  Israel '  far  more  than  a  '  kingdom  of  God.'  But 
though  in  a  more  or  less  indefinite  sense  it  was  under- 
stood to  be  near,  no  time  had  as  yet  been  actually 
announced  for  it.  Men  were  on  the  watch,  but  rather 
for  the  signs  of  the  coming  than  for  the  actual  coming 
itself. 

We  are  not  surprised,  therefore,  to  find  that  the 
news  that  a  prophet  had  appeared  who  preached  the 
approaching  coming  of  the  Messiah  caused  a  wide- 
spread excitement.*  The  aspect  of  this  coming,  which 
he  put  in  the  forefront,  was  the  aspect  of  judgment. 
The  axe  was  laid  to  the  root  of  the  trees,  and  the  fruit- 
less tree  would  be  burned  (Mt  3^",  Lk  3^. 

The  prophet  who  made  this  announcement  bore  the 
name  of  John.  The  scene  of  his  preaching  was  the 
wilderness  of  Judsea,  near  the  lower  course  of  the  Jor- 
dan where  it  fell  into  the  Dead  Sea.  In  this  wilder- 
ness he  had  lived  in  solitude  for  some  time  before  he 
began  his  prophetic  mission.  His  whole  appearance 
was  sternly  ascetic.  He  seems  to  have  adopted  de- 
liberately a  garb  and  a  manner  of  life  resembling  those 
of  Elijah,  probably  not  so  much  in  anticipation  of  the 
verdict  which  was  to  be  afterwards  passed  upon  him 
(Mt  11")  as  because  he  took  Elijah  for  his  model. 

His  character  and  his  mission  alike  were  severely 
simple.  His  soul  was  possessed  with  a  strong  con- 
viction, wrought  in  him  in  precisely  the  same  manner 
in  which  such  convictions  were  wrought  in  the  prophets 

*  Stress  can  hardly  be  laid  on  the  form  of  announcement  in  Mt 
3',  which  would  make  the  Baptist  anticipate  exactly  the  announce- 
ment of  Jesus.  This  would  seem  to  be  due  to  the  editor.  The 
older  version  describes  the  Baptist  as  '  preaching  a  baptism  of  repent- 
ance for  remission  of  sins '  (Mk  I*), 


36  THE   EARLY   MINISTRY 

of  the  OT,  that  a  great  crisis  was  near  at  hand. 
What  lay  beyond  was  dim,  and,  so  far  as  the  prophet 
had  a  definite  picture  before  him,  it  was  probably  not 
very  different  from  that  which  presented  itself  to  his 
countrymen.  But  he  saw  clearly  that  the  crisis  would 
take  the  form  of  a  judgment,  and  that  there  would  be 
a  judge,  a  personal  judge,  with  a  mission  vastly  greater 
than  his  own.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  also  borne  in 
upon  him  that  the  preparation  required  by  this  coming 
judgment  is  a  moral  reformation.  This  he  sees  in- 
tensely; and  again  he  goes  back  behind  the  teaching 
of  his  day  to  that  of  the  ancient  prophets.  That  which 
is  required  is  not  merely  a  stricter  performance  of  the 
law,  but  a  deep  inward  change  —  a  change  spontane- 
ously expressing  itself  in  right  action. 

Once  more,  and  indeed  very  conspicuously,  he  made 
good  his  resemblance  to  the  older  prophets  by  clothing 
this  leading  idea  of  his  in  an  expressive  symbolical 
act.  The  rumour  of  him  brought  the  people  to  him  in 
crowds  ;  and  one  by  one,  as  they  confessed  to  him  their 
sins  and  convinced  him  of  the  reality  of  their  repent- 
ance, he  took  them  down  into  the  running  waters  of 
the  Jordan  ;  he  made  them  plunge  in  or  let  the  waters 
close  over  their  heads,  and  then  he  led  them  out  again 
with  the  consciousness  that  they  had  left  their  sinful 
past  behind  them,  and  that  they  were  pledged  to  a 
new  life. 

The  process  was  called  '  Baptism ' ;  and  John,  from 
the  fact  that  it  constituted  the  main  outward  expression 
of  his  mission,  was  called  'the  Baptist.'  The  act  bore 
a  certain  resemblance  to  those  ceremonial  washings 
with  which  the   Jews  were   familiar   enough,  and   which 


PRELIMINARY   PERIOD  37 

held  a  specially  prominent  place  in  the  ritual  of  the 
Essenes.  But  it  differed  from  all  these  in  that  it  was 
an  act  performed  once  for  all,  and  not  repeated  from 
day  to  day.  The  lesson  of  it  was  that  of  Jn  13'":  he 
who  was  once  bathed  in  this  thorough  and  searching 
fashion  did  not  need  to  have  the  act  repeated ;  the  effect 
was  to  last  for  life. 

The  movement  took  hold  especially  of  the  lower  and 
what  were  thought  to  be  the  more  abandoned  classes. 
John  was  kept  fully  employed  in  the  work  of  confessing 
and  baptizing,  but  he  did  not  allow  it  to  be  forgotten 
that  all  this  pointed  forward  to  another  mission  greater 
than  his  own.  The  presentiment  grew  upon  him  that 
part  of  his  task  as  prophet  was  to  name  this  mightier 
successor.  And  again,  after  the  manner  of  the  older 
prophets,  he  knew  that  it  would  be  made  manifest  to 
him  whom  he  was  to  name. 

Presently  the  sign  was  given.  Among  those  who 
came  to  be  baptized  was  one  who  passed  for  a  relative 
of  his  own,  with  whom  possibly,  though  perhaps  not 
probably,  he  may  have  had  some  intercourse  in  boyhood 
(cf.  Jn  i^^).  As  with  others  who  before  their  baptism 
were  called  upon  to  confess,  so  also  with  this  kinsman, 
John  had  some  converse,  and,  if  we  may  accept  what 
is  found  only  in  a  single  narrative,*  at  first  refused  to 
baptize  Him.      His  scruples  are  set  aside,  but  it  is  not 

*  Resch  (^TU.  X.  ii.  57),  in  his  later  opinion,  regards  this  narra- 
tive as  belonging  to  the  oldest  evangelical  document  ;  but  the 
passages  which  he  has  collected  in  support  of  this  view  might 
quite  well  be  explained  as  paraphrastic  allusions  to  the  canonical 
Matthew.  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  as  used  by  the 
Ebionites  (Epiph.  Hcer.  xxx.  13)  had  a  similar  scene  after  the 
Baptism  of  Jesus  (Resch,  Agrapha,  p.  345  f.). 


38  THE  EARLY  MINISTRY 

until  the  actual  baptism  that  the  full  truth  burst  upon 
him.  Still,  the  analogy  of  the  older  prophecy  is  main- 
tained. A  sign  is  given  such  as  that  which  Isaiah 
offered  to  Ahaz  (Is  7"),  From  the  Fourth  Gospel  we 
should  gather  that  it  was  seen  in  prophetic  vision  by 
the  Baptist  (Jn  i^^'^J  ;  from  the  Synoptics  we  should 
gather  that  it  was  seen  in  like  vision  by  the  baptized 
(Mk  i'",  Mt  3'^  '  he  saw '),  And  to  prophetic  sight 
was  joined  also  the  prophetic  hearing  of  a  voice  from 
heaven,  proclaiming  in  words  that  recalled  at  once 
Ps  2'  and  Is  42^  '  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in  thee 
I  am  well  pleased.' 

(fl)  Tke  Baptisfs  Hesitation. — The  incident  of  Mt  3^**'-  is  open 
to  some  suspicion  of  being  a  product  (such  as  might  well  grow 
up  by  insensible  degrees  in  the  passing  of  the  narrative  from 
hand  to  hand)  of  the  conviction  which  later  became  general 
among  Christians,  that  their  Master  was  without  sin,  and  of  the 
difficulty  which  thence  arose  of  associating  Him  with  a  baptism 
'  of  repentance.'  We  cannot  exclude  this  possibility.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  difficulty  is  for  us,  too,  a  real  one,  and  the 
solution  given,  while  it  has  nothing  under  the  circumstances 
inconsistent  or  improbable,  is  attractive  by  its  very  reserve.  *  To 
fulfil  all  righteousness '  =  to  leave  undone  nothing  which  God  had 
shown  to  be  His  will.  In  a  general  movement  which  embraced 
all  the  more  earnest-minded  in  the  nation,  it  was  right  that  He 
too  should  share.  It  would  not  follow  that  the  symbolical  act  of 
Baptism  should  have  precisely  the  same  significance  for  every  one 
who  submitted  to  it.  For  the  main  body  it  denoted  a  break  with 
a  sinful  past  and  a  new  start  upon  a  reformed  life.  For  the 
Messiah  it  denoted  a  break  simply,  the  entrance  upon  a  new 
phase  in  the  accomplishment  of  His  mission.  It  took  the  place 
with  Him  of  the  'anointing,'  which  marked  the  assumption  of  the 
active  work  to  which  they  were  called  by  the  kings  and  prophets 
of  old.  This  'anointing'  was  the  'descent  of  the  Spirit.'  The 
Baptism  of  the  Messiah  was  Baptism  '  with  the  Spirit,'  wherewith 
He  was  to  baptize.  The  significance  of  Baptism  in  His  case  was 
positive  rather  than  negative. 


PRELIMINARY   PERIOD  39 

(/3)  The  Voice  from  Heaven.  —  It  has  been  too  readily  assumed 
by  some  distinguished  writers  (^e.g.  Usener)  that  the  oldest  version 
of  the  voice  from  heaven  was  in  exact  agreement  with  Ps  2}  'Thou 
art  my  [beloved]  Son :  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.'  In  two  of 
the  three  Synoptics  the  reading  is  undoubtedly  kv  <toI  [<^]  ev86Kr](ra 
[971^5-].  It  is  true,  however,  that  in  Lk  3^2  an  important  group  of 
authorities  has  iyw  a'f)iJ.epov  yeyivvrjKd  <re.  This  is  the  reading  of 
the  larger  branch  of  the  Western  text  (D  a  b  c  a/,  codd.  nonnull. 
ap.  Aug.  Juvenc.  a/.).  A  similar  reading  is  found  in  Justin,  c. 
Tryph.  bis  and  in  other  writers,  and  both  readings  are  combined 
in  the  Ebionite  Gospel  as  quoted  by  Epiphaoius.  [The  evidence 
is  collected  in  full  by  Resch,  Agrapha,  p.  347  ff.]  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  in  some  of  these  cases  the  Ps 
is  not  directly  quoted,  and  in  all  assimilation  to  the  text  of  the  Ps 
lay  very  near  at  hand.  Even  the  Western  text  of  Luke  is  divided, 
a  smaller  but  very  ancient  branch  (including  e)  agreeing  with  the 
mass  of  the  Gr.  MSB,  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  not  only  the 
Canonical  Gospels,  but  the  ground  document  on  which  they  are 
based,  had  the  common  reading.  The  competing  reading  was  a 
natural  application  of  Ps  2',  and  it  fell  in  so  readily  with  views 
which  in  different  forms  circulated  rather  widely  in  the  2nd  cent, 
that  we  cannot  be  surprised  if  it  met  with  a  certain  amount  of  adop- 
tion.    See,  further,  below. 

(7)  Apocryphal  Details. — The  story  of  the  Baptism  underwent 
various  apocryphal  amplifications  and  adornments.  One  of  the  earliest 
of  these  is  the  appearance  of  a  bright  light  (Codd.  Vercell.  et  San- 
germ,  ad  Mt  3^^;  Ev.  Ebion.  ap.  Epiph.,  Ephraem  Syr.)  or  of  a  fire 
upon  the  Jordan  (Just.  c.  Tryph.  88,  Prcrdicatio  Patili  ap.  Ps.-Cypr. 
de  Rebapt.  17  a/.).  The  most  elaborate  working  up  of  this  kind  of 
material  is  found  in  the  Syriac  Baptismal  Liturgy  ■ef  Severus  (Resch, 
Agrapha,  p.  361  ff.). 

(5)  The  Synoptic  and  Johannean  Versions.  —  When  a  prophet 
began  his  prophetic  career  he  received  clear  proof  of  the  reality  of 
his  call  most  often  through  some  powerful  inner  experience  or  vision 
{e.g.  Is  6),  but  also  at  times  through  Divine  revelation  to  another 
{e.g.  I  K  19^^).  We  may  regard  the  events  of  the  Baptism  as  a 
Divine  authentication  of  this  kind_of  the.  Mission  of  Jesus.  But  if  so, 
there  would  be  nothing  incongruous  in  supposing  that  this  authen- 
tication was  vouchsafed,  both  to  the  Messiah  Himself  and  to  the 
Forerunner,  just  as  a  similar  authentication  was  vouchsafed  to  St. 
Paul  and  to  Ananias  (Ac  (f^- 1^*-).  We  are  therefore  not  in  any 
way  compelled  to  choose  between  the  Synoptic  and  Johannean  ver- 


40  THE   EARLY   MINISTRY 

sions  as  to  the  incidence  of  the  supernatural  signs.  The  two  versions 
may  quite  well  be  thought  of  as  supplementing  rather  than  contradict- 
ing each  other. 

The  Baptism  of  Jesus  undoubtedly  marks  the  be- 
— vginning  of  His  public  ministry.  How  much  more  was 
it  than  this  ?  The  Judaizing  Ebionites  of  the  2nd  cen- 
tury, who  never  rose  above  the  conception  of  Christ  as 
an  inspired  prophet,  and  some  Gnostic  sects  which 
^■-^separated  the  Man  Jesus  from  the  ^on  Christus,  start- 
ing from  the  Synoptic  narrative,  and  combining  it  with 
Ps  2^  dated  from  the  Baptism  the  union  of  the  human 
and  the  Divine  in  Christ  in  such  a  way  that  they  are 
sometimes  described  as  making  the  Baptism  a  substi- 
""'  tute  for  the  supernatural  Birth.  We  can  imagine  how,  to 
those  who  had  the  story  of  the  Baptism  before  them, 
but  who  had  not  yet  been  reached  by  the  tidings  of 
those  earlier  events  round  which  the  veil  of  a  sacred 
privacy  had  been  drawn,  and  which  (as  we  shall  see) 
only  made  their  way  to  general  knowledge  by  slow 
degrees  and  after  some  length  of  titne  had  elapsed, 
should  regard  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  first 
endowment  with  Divinity.  The  fact  that  it  was  not  till 
/  then  that  Jesus  began  to  perform  His  '  mighty  works,' 
'  would  seem  to  give  some  colour  to  the  belief.  And  it 
would  be  likely  enough  that  a  passing  phase  of  Chris- 
tian thought,  based  upon  imperfect  knowledge,  would 
survive  in  certain  limited  circles.  But  the  main  body  of 
the  Church  did  not  rest  in  this  contracted  view,  which 
was  really  inconsistent  with  the  Christology  revealed 
to  us  in  the  earliest  group  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  It 
accepted,  and,  through  such  leaders  as  Ignatius  of  An- 
tioch,  emphasized   strongly   the   earlier   chapters   of   the 


PRELIMINARY   PERIOD  4I 

canonical  narrative  ;  and  the  contents  of  those  chapters 
gave  shape  to  the  oldest  form  (which  can  hardly  be 
later  than  Ignatius)  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  Already, 
before  the  ist  century  was  out,  St.  John  had  presented 
what  was  to  be  the  Catholic  interpretation  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Baptism  to  the  Godhead  of  Christ.  Far 
back  at  the  very  beginning  of  all  beginnings  the  Divine 
Word  had  already  been  face  to  face  with  God,  and  was 
Himself  God ;  so  that,  when  the  same  Word  entered  )^ 
into  the  conditions  of  humanity,  this  did  not  denote 
any  loss  of  Godhead  which  was  inherent  and  essential. 
Much  less  could  the  Godhead  of  the  incarnate  Christ 
be  supposed  to  date  from  the  signs  w^hich  accompanied 
the  Baptism.  The  object  of  these  signs  was  rather  to 
inaugurate  JJ:ie  public-aftiaist^y-e^-the— Messiah,  that  He 
might  be  '  manifested  to  Israel  '  (rva  (f}avepo)$fj  t<S  'lap., 
Jn  i^').  Though  the  Greek  is  different  the  idea  is  the 
same  as  that  in  Lk  i^°,  where  it  is  said  of  the  Baptist 
himself  that  he  was  in  the  desert  '  till  the  day  of  his 
showing  unto  Israel '  (ews  rj/xipa?  dvaSctiew^  airov  Trpos 
Tov  'lo-p.).  Whether  or  not  the  signs  were  in  the  first 
instance  seen  by  more  than  the  Messiah  Himself  and 
the  Baptist  (and  it  is  probable  that  they  were  not),  they 
were  made  public  by  the  Baptist's  declaration  (Jn  i^^^), 
so  that  in  any  case  there  was  a  real  '  manifestation  to 
Israel.' 

No  doubt  there  was  more  than  this.  Besides  the 
outward  manifestation,  a  new  epoch  opened  for  the 
Son  of  Man  Himself.  But  the  nature  of  this  we  can 
describe  only  by  its  effects.  The  evangelists  evidently 
have  before  their  minds  the  analogy  of  the  prophetic 
call  and  prophetic  endowment.     After  the  events  of  the 


42  THE   EARLY   MINISTRY 

^  Baptism  Jesus  is  *  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit '  (Lk  4^,  cf. 
Mt  4\  Mk  i'^.  And  He  applies  to  Himself  the  pro- 
phetic language  of  Is  61^  'The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon 
me  ;  because  the  Lord  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  good 
tidings  unto  the  meek,' etc.  (cf.  Lk  4^*;    it  is  probably 

)(  this  allusion  to  '  anointing  with  the  Spirit '  which  has 
led  to  the  incident  in  Lk  being  placed  thus  early).  In 
the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  this  is  expressed 
even  more  emphatically  than  in  the  canonical  Gospels  : 
'  Factum  est  autem  cum  ascendisset  Dominus  de  aqua, 
descendit  fons  omnis  Spiritus  sancti  et  requievit  super 
eum  et  dixit  illi :  Fill  mi  in  omnibus  prophetis  exspec- 
tabam  te,  ut  venires  et  requiescerem  in  te.  Tu  es  enim 
requies  mea,  tu  es  filius  mens  primogenitus  qui  regnas 
in  sempiternum  '  (Hieron.  ad Jes.  xi.  i). 

We  have  only  to  add  that  from  this  time  onwards  the 
role  of  the  Messiah  is  distinctly  assumed.  The  '  mighty 
works '  very  soon  begin ;  disciples  begin  to  attach 
themselves,  at  first  loosely,  but  with  increasing  close- 
ness ;  and  there  is  a  tone  of  decisive  authority  both  in 
teaching  and  in  act. 

Literature.  —  There  is  a  strange  mixture  of  fine  scholarship 
and  learning,  with  bold,  not  to  say  wild,  speculation  on  the  subject 
of  this  section  in  Usener's  Religionsgeschichtliche  Untersuchungen, 
I  Teil,  Bonn,  1889.  With  this  may  be  compared  Bornemann,  Die 
Taufe  Christi  durck  Johannes  in  d.  dogmatischen  Beurteilutig 
d.  Christi.  Theologen  d.  vier  ersten  Jahrhunderte,  Leipzig,  1896. 
John  the  Baptist,  by  the  late  Dr.  H.  R.  Reynolds  (3rd  ed.  1888), 
represents  the  Congregational  Lecture  of  1874,  and  deals  more 
with  the  career  of  John  than  with  the  questions  which  arise  out 
of  the  Baptism  of  Jesus;  but  it  does  not  leave  these  untouched  so 
far  as  they  had  at  that  date  come  into  view. 

§  13.   ii.    The  Temptation.  —  We  decline  to  speculate 


PRELIMINARY   PERIOD  43 

where   the   data   fail   us.     But   one   remarkable   glimpse 
is  afforded  us  into  the  state   of  the  inner  consciousness 
of   the  Son  of    Man  after  His  Baptism.     Strictly  speak- 
ing, this  would  not  as   yet   have  been  available  to  the 
spectator.     It  was  probably  not  at   this  early  date  that  <— ""'^ 
it  was  disclosed,  even  to  those  nearest  and  dearest  to 
Him.     Still,  the  disclosure  must  have  been  made  by  the  4..,^^'^ 
Lord   Himself   during  His  lifetime ;    and  the  extent   to 
which  it  has  found  its  way  into  all  the  Synoptics  shows 
that  it  must  have  had  a  somewhat  wide  diffusion  among  -^ — 
the  main  body  of  the  disciples.     For  this  reason,  as  well 
as  for  the  advantage  of  introducing  it  at  the  place  which 
it  occupies   in   the  narratives,  we   shall   not   hesitate  to    v 
touch   upon   the  Temptation  here,  though  it  might  per-     j 
haps  more  strictly  come  under  the  head  of  '  Supplemental  / 
Matter.'  •■>*«»**- 

The  narratives  of   the    Temptation  are  upon  the  face      ^ 
of  them  symbolical.     Only  in  the  form  of  symbols  was 
it  possible  to  present  to  the  men  of  that  day  a  struggle 

so  fought  out  in  the  deepest  recesses  of  the  soul.     There   __ ■ 

are  two  instances  of   such    struggle  in   the    life   of    the 

Redeemer  —  one  at  the  beginning  and   the  other  at  the 

end  of  His  ministry  (Lk  4^^  comp.  with  22^^).      In  both, 

the    assault    comes    from    without,   from    the    personal  *~-*V"^ 

Power  of   Evil.     It   is  impossible  for  us   to  understand 

it,    in    the   sense   of    understanding    how   what   we  call 

temptation  could  affect  the  Son  of  God,     It  could  not 

have   touched    Him  at   all   unless   He    had    been   also,  ^^^^-^ 

and  no  less  really.  Son  of  Man.     He  vouchsafed  to  be 

tempted  in  order  that   He  might  be   in  all  points  like      X 

unto  His  brethren  (He  4^*). 

The  Temptation  clearly  belongs   to  the  beginning  of 


44  THE   EARLY   MINISTRY 

the  Ministry.  It  would  have  had  no  point  before  ;  and 
the  issue  on  which  it  turned  had  evidently  been  decided 
before  the  public  life  of  Jesus  began,  as  that  life 
throughout  its  whole  course  followed  the  law  which 
I  was  then  laid  down.  The  Temptation  implies  two 
/  things.  It  implies  that  He  to  whom  it  was  addressed 
f  both  knew  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah  whom  the  Jews 
expected,  and  also  knew  Himself  to  be  in  possession 
of  extraordinary  powers.  To  say  that  He  was  now  for 
the  first  time  conscious  of  these  powers  is  more  than 
we  have  warrant  for.  But,  in  any  case,  it  was  the  first 
time  that  the  prohle.ni_arose  how  they  were  to  be  exer- 
I  cised.  Were  they  to  be  exercised  at  the  prompting  of 
the  simplest  of  all  instincts  —  the  instinct  of  self-preser- 
.  vation  ?  Were  they  to  be  exercised  in  furtherance  of 
what  must  have  seemed  to  be  the  first  condition  on 
which  His  mission  as  the  Messiah  could  be  accom- 
plished —  to  convince  the  world  that  He  had  the  mission, 
^  that  it  was  for  Him  to  lead  and  for  them  to  follow? 
And,  lastly,  when  He  came  forward  as  the  Messiah, 
was  it  to  be  as  the  Messiah  of  Jewish  expectation? 
Was  His  kingdom  to  be  a  kingdom  of  this  world  ? 
Was  it  to  embrace  all  the  secular  kingdoms  and  the 
glory  of  them,  to  enfold  them  in  a  system  more  power- 
ful and  more  magnificent  than  theirs,  brought  about  by 
supernatural  means,  with  no  local  limitations  like  even 
the  greatest  of  past  empires,  but  wide  as  the  universe 
itself  and  indestructible  ?  Was  it  to  be  a  real  restoring 
of  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ?  Was  Jerusalem  to  be  its 
centre,  in  a  new  sense  the  '  city  of  the  Great  King '  ? 

All     these    questions    Jesus     answered     for    Himself 
absolutely   in   the   negative.     There   did   not   enter   into 


PRELIMINARY   PERIOD  45 

His  mind  even  a  passing  shadow  of  the  ambition  which 
marked  the  best  of  earthly  conquerors.  He  was  deter- 
mined not  to  minister  in  the  least  to  the  national  pride 
of  the  Jews.  Still  less  would  He  work  out  a  new  pride 
of  His  own.  He  did  not  desire  in  any  sense  volitare 
per  ora.  Even  the  most  natural  cravings  of  the  nature 
which  He  had  assumed  He  refused  to  satisfy  so  long  as 
their  satisfaction  ended  with  Himself. 

These  principles  are  involved  in  the  narrative  of  the 
Temptation.  They  are  laid  down  once  for  all ;  and  the 
rest  of  the  history  shows  no  swerving  from  them.  At 
the  same  time  it  must  be  remembered  that  although  the 
decision  had  been  reached  by  Jesus  Himself,  it  was  not 
yet  known,  except  so  far  as  He  was  pleased  to  reveal 
it.  Partly,  the  revelation  was  made  by  acts  and  the 
self-imposed  limits  of  action.  The  clearest  revelation 
was  the  story  of  the  Temptation  itself.  But  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other  was  wholly  understood. 

§  14.  iii.  The  First  Disciples  and  the  Miracle  at 
Cana.  —  At  this  point  we  leave  for  some  time  the  Sy- 
noptic narrative  and  follow  rather  that  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  which  it  must  be  confessed  comes  to  us  with 
very  considerable  verisimilitude.  If  we  had  only  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  we  should  have  to  suppose  that  our 
Lord  gathered  about  Him  a  band  of  disciples  abruptly 
and  suddenly,  capturing  them  as  it  were  by  the  tone 
of  authority  in  His  command.  In  St.  John  we  have  the 
steps  given  which  led  up  to  this,  and  which  make  it  far 
more  intelligible. 

From  this  Gospel  it  would  appear  that  Jesus  remained 
for   some   time   in   the   neighbourhood    of    the    Baptist; 


46  THE  EARLY  MINISTRY 

that  the  Baptist  more  than  once  indicated  Him  in  a 
marked  and  indeed  mysterious  way  (Jn  i^  '  The  Lamb 
of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world ' ;  cf. 
v.^®) ;  *  and  that  one  by  one  several  of  John's  disciples 
^  began  to  attach  themselves,  as  yet  more  or  less  loosely, 
to  His  person.  The  Baptist's  testimony,  strengthened 
by  first  impressions,  awoke  in  them  the  belief  that  at 
last  the  '  mightier  than  he '  predicted  by  the  Baptist  had 
come  (Jn  i*^).  Such  a  belief  at  this  time  and  under 
these  circumstances  would  need  no  elaborate  demonstra- 
tion. It  would  be  accepted  in  a  tentative  way,  awaiting 
verification  from  events,  and,  of  course,  only  with  those 
contents  which  accorded  with  current  Jewish  opinion. 

The  home  of  Jesus  was  still,  as  it  had  been  for  some 
thirty  years  of  His  life,  at  Nazareth ;  and  at  the  time 
when  He  began  to  collect  followers  round  Him,  He  was 
already  on  the  point  of  returning  thither  (Jn  i*').  He 
had  not  as  yet  separated  Himself  from  the  domestic 
life  of  His  family.  It  was  as  an  incident  in  this  life 
that  He  went  to  a  marriage  feast  at  the  village  of  Cana 
(prob.  =  Kd?ta  el-Jelil  rather  than  Kefr  Kennd)  in  the 
company  of  His  mother  and  some  at  least  of  His  newly- 
found  disciples.  Here  occurred  the  first  of  those  *  signs  ' 
which  were  to  be  one  conspicuous  outcome  of  His 
mission.  No  wonder  that  it  impressed  itself  vividly  on 
the  memory  of  one  who  was  present,  and  that  it   con- 

*  The  words  are  remarkable,  especially  as  coming  thus  at  the 
very  threshold.  It  is  possible  that  the  evangelist  may  have  been 
led  to  define  somewhat  in  view  of  later  events  and  later  doctrines 
(for  the  allusion  seems  to  be  to  Is  53).  But  the  context,  including 
the  deputation  from  Jerusalem,  is  so  lifelike  and  so  thoroughly  in 
accordance  with  probabilities,  that  the  saying  has  a  presumption 
in  its  favour. 


PRELIMINARY   PERIOD  47 

firmed   his   incipient  faith  (Jn  2").     We  shall  speak  of 
these  signs  in  their  general  bearing  presently. 

§  15.  iv.  The  First  Passover.  —  There  would  seem  to 
have  been  some  connexion  between  the  family  at 
Nazareth  and  Capernaum,*  as  the  whole  party  now 
spend  some  days  there  (Jn  2^^).  But  the  Passover  was 
near,  and  Jesus,  with  at  least  some  of  His  disciples, 
went  up  to  it.  In  connexion  with  this  Passover,  St. 
John  places,  what  has  the  appearance  of  a  somewhat 
high-handed  act,  the  expulsion  of  buyers  and  sellers 
from  the  outer  court  of  the  temple  (Jn  2^^^.  The 
Synoptics  place  a  similar  act  in  the  last  week  of  the 
Ministry  (Mk  11^^^^  ||).  It  is  possible  that  such  an  act 
may  have  happened  twice ;  but  if  we  are  to  choose,  and 
if  we  believe  the  Gospel  to  be  really  by  the  son  of 
Zebedee,  we  ;shall  give  his  dating  the  preference  —  the 
more  so  as  in  these  early  chapters  the  dates  are  given 
with  great  precision,  and  apparently  with  the  intention 
of  correcting  a  current  impression. 

This  act  was  the  first  definite  assumption  of  a  public 
mission  to  Israel,  and  its  scene  was  fitly  chosen  at  the 
centre  of  Israel's  worship.  It  was  the  act,  not  as  yet 
necessarily  of  one  who  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  but 
of  a  religious  reformer  like  one  of  the  ancient  prophets. 
It  was  naturally  followed  by  a  challenge  as  to  the  right 

*  The  site  of  Capernaum  has  been  much  debated.  At  one  time 
it  seemed  as  if  the  suffrage  would  go  for  Tell  Hum,  but  of  late 
there  has  been  a  reaction  in  favour  of  Khan  Minyeh  (see  the  art. 
in  Hastings'  DB,  HGHL  p.  456  f.,  and  von  Soden,  Reisebriefe  (1898), 
p.  160  f.,  who  quotes  a  resident,  Fere  Biever).  Buhl,  however,  GAP 
p.  224,  supports  Tell  H^m,  which  the  writer  now  accepts  (see  Joum, 
of  Theol,  Studies,  Oct.  1903). 


48  THE   EARLY   MINISTRY 

of  such  an  assumption.  To  this  the  enigmatic  reply 
was  given,  '  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  {i.e. 
in  a  short  time,  cf.  Hos  6^  I  will  raise  it  up ' ;  which 
seems  to  be  rightly  glossed  in  Mk  \a^  —  the  Jewish 
Church  with  its  visible  local  centre  should  give  place 
to  the  Christian  Church  with  its  invisible  and  spiritual 
centre  (cf.  Jn  4-^*').  The  saying  made  an  impression  at 
the  time,  and  was  brought  up  at  the  trial  of  Jesus  to 
support  a  charge  of  blasphemy ;  the  disciples  at  a  later 
date  referred  it  to  the  Resurrection  (Jn  2-"). 

A  striking  feature  in  the  Johannean  version  of  His 
visit  to  Judaea  is  the  way  in  which  the  work  of  Jesus 
in  connexion  with  it  takes  up  the  work  of  the  Baptist 
and  fills  in  conspicuous  gaps  in  the  narrative  of  the 
y.  Synoptics,  The  cleansing  of  the  temple  is  an  act  of 
■"  reformation  which  follows  up  the  call  to  repentance. 
In  John  alone  of  the  authorities  have  we  a  distinct  state- 
ment that  Jesus  adopted  the  practice  of  baptism  (3^^  4^), 
though  no  other  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Christian 
Sacrament  is  so  natural.  We  find  also  that  the  neces- 
sity for  baptism  and  the  '  new  birth '  which  went  with  it 
is  made  the  subject  of  a  discourse  with  the  Sanhedrist 
Nicodemus.  The  writer  of  the  Gospel  had  been  himself 
a  disciple  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  still  kept  up  his 
connexion  with  him,  and  knew  what  went  on  in  his  circle 
(Jn  3^''^).  At  the  same  time  he  seems  to  expand  the  dis- 
courses which  he  records  with  matter  of  his  own  (3^^*-  ^^^■'). 

§  16.  V.  Retire77ient  to  Galilee.  —  Soon  after  this  John 
the  Baptist  was  arrested  by  Herod  Antipas,  and  Jesus 
retired  into  Galilee.  On  the  way  He  passed  through 
Samaria,  and  paused  at  Jacob's  well  near  the  village  of 


PRELIMINARY   PERIOD  49 

Sychar  (now  generally  identified  with  'As/car),  where 
His  teaching  made  a  marked  impression  (Jn  4^^"^^). 
The  Samaritans  had  a  Messianic  expectation  of  their 
own  (Jn  4^) ;  and  if  the  narrator  has  not  defined  what 
took  place  in  the  light  of  subsequent  events,  Jesus 
claimed  to  fulfil  this  expectation.  This  was  contrary  to 
His  policy  for  some  time  to  come  in  dealing  with  Israel 
(Mk  i^^),  but  He  may  possibly  have  used  greater  free- 
dom among  non-Israelites. 

The  events  of  Jn  2^-4^^  may  have  occupied  three  or 
four  weeks,  but  hardly  more.  At  the  time  when  our 
Lord  arrives  in  Galilee  the  impression  of  His  public 
acts  at  the  Passover  was  still  fresh  (Jn  4^).  This 
would  lead  us  to  explain  the  latter  half  of  Jn  4^  as  a 
description  of  the  state  of  things  actually  existing; 
the  cornfields  were  at  the  time  'white  for  the  harvest,' 
and  '  Say  not  ye,'  etc.,  will  be  a  proverb.  But  that 
being  so,  a  difficulty  would  be  caused  if  the  incident  of 
the  plucking  of  the  ears  of  corn  (Mk  2^^*^)  were  in  its 
place  chronologically,  as  the  crops  would  still  be  in 
much  the  same  condition  as  during  the  journey  through 
Samaria,  though  the  wheat  harvest  was  going  on  be- 
tween Passover  and  Pentecost,  and  all  the  events  im- 
plied in  Mk  I "-2^^  would  have  intervened.  The  time  is 
really  too  short  for  these.  It  is  more  probable  that  they 
were  spread  over  some  months.  We  must  conceive  of 
our  Lord  as  returning  to  Galilee  with  the  few  disciples 
with  Him  still  in  the  state  of  loose  attachment  character- 
istic of  this  period,  and  Himself  remaining  for  a  while 
in  comparative  privacy.  The  disciples  had  returned  to 
their  occupations  when  He  takes  the  new  and  decisive 
step  involved  in  the  call  described  for  us  in  the  Synoptics. 
4 


50  THE  EARLY  MINISTRY 

The  Synoptic  Chronology. —  If  Mk  2^^  ||  is  to  be  taken  as  strictly 
consecutive  with  the  events  that  precede,  it  would  follow  that  the 
call  of  the  leading  apostles  took  place  at  least  a  week  or  two 
before  the  cutting  of  the  ripened  wheat,  i.e.,  as  we  might  infer,  be- 
fore rather  than  sometime  after  the  Passover  season.  In  that  case 
the  Johannean  and  Synoptic  narratives  would  not  be  easy  to  combine. 
But  the  sequence  of  incidents  in  Mark  (Eating  with  sinners,  2^3-17  j 
Fasting,  2^*"^ ;  Two  incidents  relating  to  the  Sabbath,  2"^-38)  sug- 
gests that  we  have  here  rather  a  typical  group  of  points  in  the  contro- 
versy with  the  Pharisees  than  a  chronicle  of  events  as  they  happened 
in  order  of  time.  In  that  case  the  call  of  the  apostles  might  fall  in 
the  autumn,  and  the  plucking  of  the  ears  of  corn  might  belong  to  the 
end  rather  than  the  beginning  of  the  period  upon  which  we  are  about 
to  enter. 

The  Healing  of  the  Nobleman's  Son.  —  As  the  narratives  have 
come  down  to  us,  there  are  no  doubt  real  differences  between  the 
story  of  the  healing  of  the  Nobleman's  Son  (Jn  4*6-54)  ^nd  that  of 
the  Centurion's  Servant  (Mt  S^^^  ||).  We  must,  however,  reckon  with 
the  possibility  —  it  cannot  in  any  case  be  more  —  that  they  are  two 
versions  of  the  same  event,  arising  out  of  the  ambiguity  of  Trarj  and 
SoOXos.  Years  ago  {Fourth  Gospel,  p.  lOO  f.)  the  writer  had  taken  this 
view,  which  has  since  been  adopted  by  Weiss  {Lehen  Jesu,  i.  423  f!.; 
Eng.  tr.,  T.  &  T.  Clark).  A  similar  question  may  be  raised  in  con- 
nexion with  the  common  features  of  the  narratives  Lk  5^"^^  Jn  21^"^. 
There,  too,  there  may  have  been  some  confusion  {Fourth  Gospel,  p.  267; 
cf.  Loofs,  Die  Auferstehungsberichte,  p.  32).  Such  instances  mark  the 
limits  of  a  laxer  or  stricter  interpretation  of  the  historicity  of  the  docu- 
ments, between  which  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  decide  with  absolute 
certainty. 


B.   First  Active  or  Constructive  Period  :   the 
Founding  of  the  Kingdom. 

§  17.  Scene.  —  Mainly  in   Galilee,  but   also    partly   in 

Jerusalem. 
Time.  —  From    about    Pentecost    a.d.    27    to    shortly 

before  Passover  a.d.  28. 

Mt  4''-i3^,  Mk  I"-6^^  Lk  4"-9«,  Jn  i^^\ 


FIRST  ACTIVE   PERIOD  5  I 

In  this  period  the  points  to  notice  are :  (i.)  The  '/ 
Call,    Training,    and    Mission    of   the   Twelve,   fol- 
lowed perhaps  by  a  larger  number  (the  Seventy  of 
St.  Luke)  ;   (ii.)  the   gradual   differentiation  of  the    -^ 
ministry  of  Jesus  from  that   of   John    Baptist   and 
its   assumption   of   a   much    larger   scope ;   (iii.)   a    <^ 
full  course  of  teaching  on  the  true   nature  of   the 
Kingdom  of  God   (or   of   Heaven) ;   (iv.)   the   per- 
formance of  a  number  of  Messianic  works,  chiefly 
of  healing ;   (v.)  the  effect  of   these  works   on  the     ^ 
common   people   as   seen    in   a    great    amount    of 
superficial   enthusiasm,    but   without    as   yet   much 
intelligent    apprehension    of    the    object    really   in 
view ;    (vi.)   the    growing   hostility   of    the   scribes  "^ 
and   Pharisees   caused   by   a   more    and   more   de- 
clared   divergence    of    principle ;     (vii.)    the    very  '^ 
gentle   indirect   and    gradual   putting    forward    by 
Jesus  of  His  claim  as  the  Messiah. 
Up  to  the  point  which   we   have   now  reached   there 
had  been  no  definite  '  founding '  of  a  society ;    no  steps     / 
had  been  taken  towards  the  institution   even   of   a  new 
sect,   much   less   of   a   new   religion.     The    Baptism    of 
Jesus    had     been     attended    by     circumstances     which 
marked  Him   out   in   a   highly  significant   manner;    but 
the    general    knowledge    of    these     circumstances    was 
vague,  and  even   in  those   who   were   not   unacquainted 
with  them  they  awoke  expectations  rather  than  convic- 
tions, and  these,  too,  were  vague  and  left  for  the  future 
to  define.     For  the   rest   little   as   yet   had   occurred   to 
define  them.     A  certain  number  of  disciples  had  gathered 
round  Jesus  in  the  most  easy  and  natural  manner,  just 
as   disciples  had  gathered   round  many  a    Rabbi  before 


52  THE  EARLY  MINISTRY 

Him.  These  simply  came  and  went  as  inclination  took 
them  ;  they  were  not  as  yet  bound  by  any  closer  ties  to 
His  person.  He  had  gone  about  quietly  with  some  of 
them  in  His  company,  but  nothing  very  startling  had 
happened.  The  expulsion  of  the  buyers  and  sellers 
from  the  temple  was  a  prophetic  act,  and  two  '  signs  ' 
had  occurred  at  a  considerable  interval ;  but  this  was 
little  to  what  the  Jews  expected  in  their  Messiah.  So 
far  Jesus  had  worked  side  by  side  with  the  Baptist,  and 
on  very  similar  lines.  If  His  disciples  took  a  share  in 
baptizing  (Jn  4^),  it  was  in  the  same  kind  of  baptizing 
as  that  of  John.  It  was  a  baptism  '  of  repentance,'  and 
in  no  sense  baptism  '  into  the  name  of  Christ.' 

The  period  on  which  we  are  now  entering  marks  a 
great  advance.  The  work  which  Jesus  came  to  perform 
now  took  its  distinctive  shape.  What  had  gone  before 
was  of  the  nature  of  foretaste,  hints,  foreshadowings ; 
now  the  strokes  follow  each  other  in  quick  succession 
by  which  the  purpose  of  Jesus  is  set  clearly  before 
those  who  have  eyes  to  see.  We  may  take  these  one 
by  one. 

§  18.  i.  The  Call,  Training,  and  Mission  of  the 
Tivelve  {and  of  the  Seventy).  —  The  first  step  is  one 
which  evidently  struck  the  imagination  of  the  followers 
of  Jesus,  because  it  is  placed  in  the  forefront  of  the 
Synoptic  narrative.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  real  beginning 
of  the  Public  Ministry.  Among  those  who  had  been 
the  first  to  seek  a  nearer  acquaintance  with  the  new 
Prophet  were  two  pairs  of  brothers,  both  from 
Capernaum,  and  both  fishermen  by  trade.  When  Jesus 
returned  to  Galilee  they  all  went  back  to  their  ordinary 


FIRST  ACTIVE   PERIOD  53 

occupations,  and  they  were  engaged  in  these  when 
suddenly  they  saw  Him  standing  by  the  shore  of  the 
lake  and  received  a  peremptory  command  to  follow 
Him  (Mk  i^*'"^||).  This  'following'  meant  something 
more  than  anything  they  had  done  as  yet ;  they  were 
to  '  be  with  him  '  (Mk  3"),  so  that  they  might  receive 
His  teaching  continuously  and  in  a  manner  systemati- 
cally. They  were  encouraged  to  ask  questions,  and 
their  questions  were  answered.  Special  and  full  ex- 
planations were  given  to  them  which  were  not  given 
to  others  (Mt  13^*).  The  teaching  of  Jesus  was  not 
esoteric,  but  there  was  this  inner  circle  to  whom 
peculiar  advantages  were  given  for  entering  into  it. 

The  call  which  was  issued  in  the  first  instance  to  the 
four,  Peter  and  Andrew,  James  and  John,  was  gradu- 
ally extended.  The  one  other  instance  particularized 
in  the  Gospels  is  that  of  Levi^  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  to 
whom  was  given  —  possibly  by  Jesus  Himself  (Weiss, 
Leben  Jesu,  i.  503)  —  the  name  of  'Matthew'  (  =  ' given 
by  God ').  A  like  call  proceeded  to  others,  till  the 
number  was  made  up  to  twelve  (lists  in  Mk  3^"^  Mt 
iQ-"*,  Lk  6^^^^,  Ac  i^^).  The  persons  chosen  belonged 
to  the  middle  and  lower  classes.  Some  must  have 
been  fairly  well-to-do.  Not  only  did  the  fishermen 
own  the  boats  they  used,  but  the  father  of  James  and 
John  ha^  'hired  servants'  (Mk  i""),  and  John  was 
acquainted  with  the  high  priest*  (i.e.,  perhaps,  with 
members  of  his  household,  Jn  18").  Matthew  was  of 
the   despised   class  of   'publicans.'     The   second  Simon 

*  Hugo  Delff  {Gesch.  d.  Rabbi  Jesus  v.  Nazareth,  p.  70  ff.),  dis- 
tinguishing between  the  Apostle  John  and  the  author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  makes  the  latter  a  Jew  of  priestly  family. 


s/ 


y 


54  THE   EARLY   MINISTRY 

belonged  to  the  party  of  Zealots.  One,  the  second 
Judas  (like  his  father,  Simon,  Jn  6"  13-"  RV),  was  a 
native  of  Kerioth  in  Judaea.  They  were  chosen  evi- 
dently for  a  certain  moral  aptitude  which  they  showed 
for  the  mission  to  be  entrusted  to  them.  Judas  Iscariot 
possessed  this  like  the  rest,  but  wrecked  his  fair 
chances.  The  choice  and  call  of  Jesus  did  not  preclude 
the  use  of  common  free-will. 

The  course  of  teaching  in  which  the  Twelve  were 
initiated  covered  a  considerable  part  of  that  of  which 
an  outline  will  presently  be  sketched,  especially  its 
first  two  heads.  It  is  summarized  in  the  phrase  'the 
mystery  of  the  Kingdom  '  (Mk  4^^||),  Of  course  it  is 
not  to  be  thought  that  the  disciples  at  once  understood 
all  that  was  told  them.  Very  far  from  it.  They  had 
much  to  unlearn  as  well  as  to  learn,  and  they  showed 
themselves  slow  of  apprehension.  But  the  form  of 
teaching  adopted  by  Jesus  was  exactly  fitted  for  its 
object,  which  was  to  lodge  in  the  mind  principles 
that  would  gradually  become  luminous  as  they  were 
interpreted  by  events  and  by  prolonged  if  slow 
reflection. 

Jesus  Himself  knew  full  well  how  unripe  even  the 
most  intimate  of  His  disciples  were  to  carry  out  His 
designs.  After  a  time  —  we  may  suppose  early  in  the 
year  28  —  He  sent  out  the  Twelve  on  a  mission  to 
villages  and  country  districts  which  He  was  not  able  to 
visit  at  once  Himself  (Mt  lo'""!!).  But  they  were  not 
to  attempt  to  teach.  Some  of  the  wonderful  works 
which  Jesus  did  Himself  they  also  were  empowered  to 
do ;  but  the  announcement  which  they  were  to  make  by 
word  of   mouth   was   limited    to   the   one   formula   with 


FIRST  ACTIVE   PERIOD  55 

which  both  John  and  Jesus  had  begun :   '  The  kingdom     y 
of  heaven  is  at  hand  '  (Mt  10^. 

In  one  Gospel  mention  is  made  of  a  mission  which  seems  to  be 
supplemental  to  this.  Luke  speaks  not  only  of  the  Twelve  being 
sent  out,  but  also  of  Seventy  sent  out  like  the  Twelve  by  twos  (Lk 
lO^^f-).  When  we  observe  that  the  instructions  given  to  them 
are  substantially  a  repetition  of  those  already  given  to  the 
Twelve,  the  question  lies  near  at  hand  whether  we  have  not  in 
this  incident  a  mere  doublet  of  the  preceding,  the  number  seventy 
{var.  led.  seventy-two)  representing  in  current  symbolism  the 
nations  of  the  known  world  (cf.  Gn  10)  —  being  gradually  sub- 
stituted in  the  oral  tradition  of  Gentile  Churches  for  the  number 
twelve,  which  seemed  to  point  specially  to  Israel.  We  note  also 
that  Luke  omits  the  restrictions  of  Mt  lo^  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  Luke  connects  with  the  return  of  the  Seventy  a  little  group 
of  sayings  (Lk  ioi8-20^  which  have  every  appearance  of  being 
genuine,  and  so  increase  the  credibility  of  the  narrative  which 
leads  up  to  them.  And  there  is  reason  to  think  that  one  at  least 
of  the  special  sources  to  which  Luke  had  access  came  from  just 
such  a  quarter  as  that  indicated  by  the  Seventy  —  not  the  inner- 
most, but  the  second  circle  of  disciples.  He  may  therefore  have 
had  historical  foundation  for  his  statement.  Nor  need  it  perhaps 
mean  more  than  that  Jesus  did  not  draw  any  hard-and-fast  line  at 
the  Twelve,  but  made  use  of  other  disciples  near  His  person  for 
the  same  purpose. 

§  19.  ii.  Differe7itiation  of  the  Ministry  of  Jesus  from 
that  of  John  the  Baptist. — We  have  just  seen  that  John, 
Jesus  Himself,  and  the  apostles  all  opened  their  ministry 
with  the  same  announcement.  They  also  made  use  of 
the  same  rite  —  baptism.  But  there  the  resemblance 
ceased.  These  were  only  the  links  which  bound  the 
stage  of  preparation  to  the  stage  of  fulfilment.  Look- 
ing back  upon  the  work  of  John,  Jesus  pronounced 
that  the  least  of  His  own  disciples  was  greater  than  -^ 
he  (Mt  ii"||).  It  was  the  difference  between  one  who 
was  within  the  range  of  the  Kingdom  and  one  who  was 


u 


56  THE  EARLY   MINISTRY 

without  it.  The  work  of  John  was  perfectly  good  and 
appropriate  as  far  as  it  went.  Its  character  was 
indicated  by  the  *  preaching  of  repentance,'  with  which 
it  stopped  short.  In  full  keeping  with  this  was  John's 
ascetic  habit  and  mode  of  life.  The  abandonment  of 
this  by  Jesus  was  the  first  outward  sign  of  divergence 
which  struck  the  eye  of  the  world  (Mk  2^^"||,  Mt 
ii^*'^'!!).  But  the  inward  divergence  was  far  greater, 
John  inherited  the  old  idea  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
Kingdom  and  of  the  Messiah.  While  impressed  with 
the  necessity  of  a  moral  reformation  as  leading  up  to  it, 
there  is  nothing  to  show  that  in  other  respects  John's 
conception  of  King  and  Kingdom  differed  from  that  of 
'  his  countrymen.  But  Jesus  came  to  revolutionize  not 
only  the  conception  but  the  mode  of  carrying  it  out. 
Hence  it  was  that  towards  the  end  of  his  day,  with  the 
despondency  of  one  whose  own  work  seemed  wrecked, 
and  who  was  himself  confined  in  a  dungeon,  and  with 
the  disappointment  natural  to  one  who  saw  or  heard  of 
but  few  of  the  signs  which  he  had  expected  as  in 
process  of  fulfilment,  John  sent  to  inquire  if  Jesus  were 
the  Messiah  indeed,  or,  in  other  words,  if  the  great 
hope  and  the  great  faith  to  which  he  had  himself  given 
expression  had  proved  delusive.  As  yet  Jesus  had  but 
in  part,  and  that  very  covertly,  declared  Himself;  it 
was  impossible  all  at  once  to  open  the  eyes  of  John  to 
the  full  mysteries  of  the  Kingdom  ;  and  therefore  Jesus 
contented  Himself  with  appealing  from  the  current 
idea  to  one  of  the  fundamental  passages  of  ancient 
prophecy  the  higher  authority  of  which  John  would 
recognize  (Mt  ii^||).  At  the  same  time  He  hinted 
that    patience    and    insight   were    necessary  for    a   true 


FIRST  ACTIVE   PERIOD  57 

faith ;    anything    less    than    this    might    easily   stumble 
(Mt  ii^ll). 

§  20.  iii.  Preaching  of  the  Kingdom.  —  In  the  mean- 
time the  crowds  of  Galilee,  and  especially  the  Twelve, 
enjoyed  the  privilege  which  John  did  not.  They  were 
having  expounded  to  them  in  full  the  new  doctrine  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God  (or  of  heaven).  This  doctrine  is 
of  such  far-reaching  importance,  and  is  so  intimately 
bound  up  with  the  rest  of  our  Lord's  teaching,  that  it 
has  seemed  best  to  reserve  the  fuller  account  of  it  for 
separate  and  connected  treatment  at  the  end  of  this 
section.  In  so  doing  we  are  following  the  example  of 
the  First  Evangelist,  who  has  massed  together  a  body 
of  teaching  at  an  early  place  in  his  Gospel  (Mt  5-7), 
not  that  it  was  all  spoken  on  the  same  occasion,  but  as 
a  specimen  of  the  general  tenor  of  the  teaching  of  which 
it  formed  part.  We  have  a  similar  example  of  grouped 
specimens  of  teaching  in  Mt  13.  It  must  suffice  to  add 
here  {a)  that  the  main  subject  of  the  teaching  at  this 
period  would  seem  to  have  been  the  nature  of  the 
Kingdom  and  the  character  required  in  its  members: 
such  sayings  as  Mt  7^-*^-  are  more  in  keeping  with  the 
later  cycle  of  teaching,  and  were  probably  spoken  later. 
ip)  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  vast  majority  of  those 
who  listened  to  this  teaching  heard  it  only  by  fragments. 
It  was  like  the  seed-corn  scattered  in  various  kinds  of 
ground  (Mk  4^"^i|):  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  even 
under  the  most  favourable  circumstances  it  should 
germinate  and  bear  fruit  all  at  once.  Clearly,  the 
Twelve  themselves  did  not  take  in  its  full  significance. 
But  it  is  much  that  they  should  have   remembered   so 


58  THE  EARLY   MINISTRY 

much  of  it  as  they  did,  and  that  when  their  eyes  were 
more  fully  opened  they  should  have  been  able  to  set  it 
down  so  coherently. 

§  21.  iv.  The  Messianic  Works.  —  Another  marked 
characteristic  of  this  period  is  the  number  of  miraculous 
works  of  healing,  etc.,  which  are  attributed  to  it  and 
evidently  belong  to  it.  Once  more  we  may  follow  the 
example  of  the  First  Evangelist  by  treating  these  works, 
which  are  so  much  the  subject  of  discussion  in  modern 
times,  by  themselves.  We  assume  here  the  result 
which  we  seem  to  reach  in  the  section  devoted  to  them. 
We  assume  that  the  miracles  are  historical ;  and  we 
observe  only  that  they  bear  the  general  character 
indicated  in  the  reply  of  Jesus  to  John  the  Baptist. 
They  are  predominantly  works  of  mercy;  and  they  are 
a  direct,  and  as  we  believe  conscious,  fulfilment  of  the 
most  authentic  of  ancient  prophecies,  as  contrasted 
with  the  mere  signs  and  wonders  for  which  the  con- 
temporary Jews  were  looking.  Here,  as  in  other 
things,  we  note  at  once  {a)  that  Jesus  condescends  to 
put  Himself  at  the  level  of  those  to  whom  He  was  sent. 
Miracles  were  to  them  the  natural  credentials  of  any  great 
prophet,  and  especially  of  the  Messiah.  Jesus  therefore 
did  not  refuse  to  work  miracles.  That  He  should  work 
them  was  part  of  the  conditions  of  the  humanity  which 
He  assumed.  But  (^)  though  He  condescended  to 
work  miracles,  it  was  only  miracles  of  a  certain  kind. 
He  steadily  refused  to  perform  the  mere  wonders  which 
the  critics  of  His  claims  repeatedly  challenged  Him  to 
perform.  In  other  words.  He  made  His  miracles  almost 
as  much  a  vehicle  of  instruction  as  His  teaching.     Those 


FIRST  ACTIVE   PERIOD  59 

which  He  did  perform  fell  into  their  place  as  the  natural 
accompaniment  of  one  who  as  in  character  so  novel 
and  unexpected  a  King  was  founding  so  novel  a 
Kingdom. 

§22.  V.  Effect  on  the  Populace.  —  It  is  a  confirmation 
of  the  view  taken  above  and  based  on  the  Fourth 
Gospel, — that  the  call  of  the  Twelve  was  preceded  by 
a  preliminary  and  more  sporadic  ministry  —  that  from 
the  first  day  on  which  the  regular  ministry  began  it 
attracted  great  attention  and  was  attended  by  great, 
if  superficial,  success  among  the  populace  of  Galilee 
(Mk  i^~^  II ).  Nor  did  the  success  of  this  first  day 
stand  alone ;  it  was  frequently  repeated,  and  indeed 
gives  the  character  to  the  whole  of  this  period  (Mk  2^- '- 1| 
^7-10 II  32 II  ^i  II  ^21 11^  Li^  yi6f.)_     Both  the  miracles  and  the 

teaching  of  Jesus  made  a  strong  impression.  The 
people  M^ere  struck  by  the  difference  between  the  acts 
and  words  of  Jesus  and  those  of  the  teachers  to  whom 
they  were  accustomed.  Acts  and  words  alike  implied  a  ^ 
claim  to  an  authority  different  in  kind  from  that  of  the 
most  respected  of  the  Rabbis  (Mk  i^||,  Mt  7=^*').  The 
Rabbis  interpreted  the  law  as  they  found  it ;  Jesus  laid  "^ 
down  a  new  law  (Mt  5^^-  ^^  etc.),  and  when  He  spoke,  it 
was  with  an  air  of  command.  It  must  not,  however, 
be  supposed  that  Jesus  was  at  once  recognized  as  the  A 
Messiah.  The  testimony  of  the  Baptist  had  reached 
but  few,  and  was  by  this  time  generally  forgotten. 
The  construction  put  upon  the  commanding  attitude  of 
Jesus  was  that  described  in  Lk  7^^  '  A  great  prophet  is 
arisen  among  us ;  and  God  hath  visited  His  people.' 
Still  less  can  it  be  supposed  that  there  was  any  adequate 


6o  THE   EARLY   MINISTRY 

recognition  of  the  change  which  Jesus  came  to  work  in 
the  current  conceptions  of  religion. 

§  23.  vi.  Effect  upoji  the  Pharisees.  —  The  populace 
came  to  Jesus  with  simple  and  credulous  minds,  and  they 
did  not  resist  the  impression  made  upon  them,  though 
it  lacked  depth  and  permanence  (Mk  4^^- 1|).  Our 
documents  are  doubtless  right  in  representing  the  first 
signs   of   opposition  and    hostility   as   coming   from   the 

X  religious  leaders,  the  scribes  and  Pharisees.  They  are 
also  clearly  right  in  representing  the  growth  of  this 
opposition  as  gradual.  At  first  Pharisees  joined  freely 
in  social  intercourse  with  Jesus  and    His   disciples,  and 

V  even  invited  them  to  their  own  tables  (Lk  7^®'""-  probably 
belongs  to  this  early  period).  They  could  not  deny  the 
possibility  of  a  prophet  arising,  and  they  repeatedly 
sought  to  test  after  their  manner  whether  Jesus  were 
really  a  prophet  sent  from  God  or  no  (Mt  i2"^*^-  ||  i6^*^- 
1 9^*^' II J  Jn  ^*''^^,  cf.  i'""^).  But  their  suspicions  were  soon 
aroused.  It  was  evident  that  the  teaching  and  manner 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  conflicted  greatly  with  their  own. 
There  was  a  freedom  and  largeness  of  view  about  it 
which  was  foreign  to  their  whole  habits  of  thought. 
(a)  In  such  matters  as  fasting,  the  practice  of  Jesus  and 
His  disciples  was  different  (Mk  2^*"'-,  Mt  6^^^-  etc.). 
Worse  than  this,  Jesus  appealed  expressly  to  those 
classes  which  they  scrupulously  avoided  (Mk  2'^^''|| 
etc.).  (^  Not  only  did  Jesus  direct  His  ministry 
especially  to  those  whom  they  regarded  as  outcast  and 
irreclaimable,  but  He  made  some  direct  attacks  upon 
themselves.  At  first  these  attacks  may  have  been 
slightly   disguised   (as   in   Mt   6^^,  where   the    Pharisees 


FIRST  ACTIVE   PERIOD  6 1 

are  not  mentioned  by  name),  but  they  constantly 
increased  in  directness  and  severity,  (c)  One  of  the 
first  topics  on  which  they  came  into  collision  was  in 
regard  to  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath.  Mark  has 
collected  a  little  group  of  incidents  bearing  upon  this 
(Mk  2^-3^),  the  first  of  which,  from  the  mention  of  the 
ripe  corn,  appears,  as  we  have  seen,  to  belong  to  the 
second  year  of  the  ministry,  but  belongs  to  an  early 
phase  in  the  conflict.  To  the  same  effect  is  the  incident 
related  in  Jn  5^*^-,  and  Luke  contributes  another  (Lk 
13"'^^).  (d)  The  Pharisees  were  also  honestly  shocked 
at  seeing  Jesus  adopt  a  tone  and  assume  prerogatives 
which  seemed  to  them  to  encroach  upon  the  honour 
of  God  (Mk  2^"  II). 

It  is  interesting,  and  throws  a  favourable  light  on  the  documents, 
to  note  how  carefully  the  distinction  is  marked  between  (a)  the 
local  scribes  and  Pharisees  such  as  were  to  be  found  scattered 
throughout  Galilee  (Mk  2^  ^^  18-24  3611,  Lk  736);  (3)  the  scribes  who 
came  down  from  Jerusalem  (Mk  3^''^),  apparently  emissaries  from 
the  hierarchy,  like  the  deputation  of  Jn  i^^;  and  (c)  the  Herodians 
(Mk  3''),  the  dynastic  party  of  the  Herods,  who  with  quite  different 
motives  acted  in  alliance  with  the  Pharisees.  The  Herodians  are 
mentioned  again  in  Mk  I2i3||.  The  name  is  otherwise  almost 
unknown  to  history,  though  the  party  is  known  to  have  existed. 
Josephus  has  ol  to,  'Hpwdov  (ppovovpres,  but  not  'HpudiavoL  This  is  a 
pure  reflexion  of  the  facts  of  the  time  —  facts  which  soon  passed 
away,  and  which  fiction  would  never  have  recovered.  See,  further, 
Z>B,  art.  Herodians. 

§  24.  The  Self- Revelation  of  Jesus.  —  Although  Jesus 
assumed  these  high  prerogatives,  and  although,  as  we 
have  seen.  He  both  spoke  and  acted  with  an  authority 
which  permitted  no  question,  He  showed  a  singular 
reticence  in  putting  forward  Messianic  or  Divine  claims. 
It   is    remarkable   that    from    the    first    those    possessed 


62  THE   EARLY   MINISTRY 

with  demons  publicly  confessed  Him  for  what  He  was ; 
but  it  is  no  less  remarkable  that  He  checked  these 
confessions :  '  He  suffered  not  the  demons  to  speak, 
because  they  knew  him'  (Mk  i^^H  3^-  [Mt  i2»«]).  He 
imposed  a  like  injunction  of  silence  on  one  healed  of 
leprosy  (Mk  i*^||).  The  farthest  point  to  which  Jesus 
went  in  the  way  of  self-revelation  at  this  early  period 
was  by  taking  to  Himself  the  special  title  '  Son  of 
Man.'  There  was  probably  some  precedent  for  the 
identification  of  this  title  with  '  Messiah,'  but  it  was  at 
least  not  in  common  use,  and  therefore  served  well  to 
cover  a  claim  which  was  made  but  in  no  way  obtruded. 
A  fuller  discussion  of  the  title  will  be  found  below 
(p.  91  ff.). 

This  marked  reticence  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  His  own 
Person  is  clearly  part  of  a  deliberate  ^an.  One  of  its 
motives  was  to  prevent  the  rash  and  reckless  violence 
which  one  who  appealed  to  the  Messianic  expectation 
was  sure  to  excite  (Jn  6^^).  But  it  was  in  full  keeping 
with  the  whole  of  His  demeanour  and  with  the  special 
character  which  He  gave  to  His  mission.  The  first 
evangelist  rightly  sees  in  this  a  fulfilment  (which  we 
ibelieve  here  as  elsewhere   to   have   been  conscious   and 

j/deliberate)   of  the   prophecy  Is   42^"^    *My   servant  .  .  . 

ij  shall   not  strive,  nor   cry  aloud  ;   neither  shall  any  one 

thear  his  voice  in  the  streets,' etc. 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  think  of  the  Jesus  portrayed 
in  the  Gospels  as  forcing  His  claims  upon  the  attention 
of  the  world.  He  rather  let  them  sink  gently  into  the 
minds  of  His  disciples  until  they  won  an  assent  which 
was  not  only  free  and  spontaneous,  but  also  more 
intelligent  than  it  could  have  been  if  enforced  simply  by 


FIRST  ACTIVE  PERIOD  63 

authority.  But,  apart  from  this,  it  was  essential  to  the 
development  of  His  mission  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Kingdom  should  precede,  and  precede  by  a  sufficient 
interval,  the  public  self-manifestation  and  offer  of  the 
King.  The  first  thing  to  be  done  was  to  change  the 
character  and  revolutionize  the  moral  conceptions  of 
men.  This  was  to  be  the  work  of  quiet  teaching. 
The  hour  for  the  Leader  to  come  forward  was  the  hour 
when  teaching  was  to  give  place  to  action.  Hence  it 
was  well  that  at  first  and  for  some  time  to  come  the 
King  should  remain,  as  it  were,  in  the  background, 
until  the  preparation  for  His  assuming  His  kingship 
was  complete. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

TEACHING   AND   MIRACLES. 

THE  TEACHING  OF   JESUS. 

a.    General  Characteristics  of  the  Teaching. 

§  25.  (i)  Its  Relation  to  the  Teaching  of  the  Baptist  and 
to  that  of  the  Scribes.  —  We  have  seen  that  Jesus  began  by 
taking  up  not  only  the  announcement  of  the  Baptist  that 
the  Kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand,  but  also  his  call  to 
reformation  of  life  and  the  rite  of  baptism  by  which  that 
call  was  impressed  upon  the  conscience.  We  are  also 
expressly  told  that  the  call  to  repentance  was  part  of  the 
apostolic  commission  (Mk  6^^).  And  we  find  it  no  less 
insisted  upon  after  the  resurrection  (Lk  24*^  Ac  2^  3^^  5^^ 
jji8  1730  2o2i  26^0). 

This  is  clear  proof  of  the  continuity  which  bound  to- 
gether the  teaching  of  Jesus  with  that  of  the  Baptist.  The 
starting-point  of  both  was  the  same.  And  yet  this  starting- 
point  was  very  soon  left  behind.  The  heads  of  the 
Baptist's  teaching  are  soon  told  ;  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
expands  and  ramifies  in  a  thousand  directions.  It  is  like 
passing  from  the  narrow  cleft  of  the  Jordan  to  a  Pisgah- 
view  over  the  whole  Land  of  Promise. 
5  65 


^  TEACHING  AND   MIRACLES 

Although  it  was  permitted  to  the  Baptist  to  prepare  the 
way  for  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  so  far  as  even  to  enunciate 
its  opening  lesson,  the  place  of  the  Baptist  is  quietly 
assigned  to  him  ;  and  it  is  a  place  outside  the  threshold  of 
the  Kingdom :  '  He  that  is  but  little  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  greater  than  he  '  (Mt  ii"  ||). 

If  Christ  thus  drew  a  line  between  His  own  teaching 
and  that  of  John,  still  more  marked  was  the  difference 
between  it  and  other  contemporary  teaching.  John  was 
at  least  a  prophet,  and  spoke  with  the  full  authority  of 
a  prophet  (Mt  1 1^-  ^^^.  The  scribes  had  no  original 
authority  at  all ;  they  did  but  interpret  a  law  which 
they  had  not  made.  Jesus  spoke  with  an  authority  not 
only  above  that  of  the  scribes  (Mk  i"^  ||),  but  higher  still 
than  that  of  John.  He  is  the  legislator  of  a  new  law 
(Mt  5^  etc.),  the  founder  of  that  Kingdom  which  John 
did  not  enter. 

§  26.  (2)  Its  Universal  Range.  —  With  this  command- 
ing character  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  there  goes  a  corre- 
sponding width  of  outlook.  We  began  with  a  rapid 
survey  of  the  state  of  parties  and  opinions  in  Palestine 
at  the  time  of  Christ.  But  the  object  of  this  survey 
was  not  to  explain  the  teaching  of  Jesus  by  affiliating  it 
to  any  existing  school.  It  was  remarked  of  Him  that 
He  had  had  no  regular  training  (Jn  7^).  He  was  not 
a  Pharisee,  not  a  Sadducee,  not  an  Essene,  not  an 
Apocalyptist.  The  direct  affinities  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  were  with  nothing  so  transitory  and  local,  but 
rather  with  that  which  was  most  central  in  OT.  We 
might  call  it  the  distilled  essence  of  OT  :  that  essence 
first  clarified  and  then  greatly  enlarged,  the  drop 
became  a  crystal  sphere. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  67 

We  are  speaking,  of  course,  of  the  substance,  and 
of  the  main  part  of  the  substance,  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus.  The  mere  fact  that  it  was  conditioned  by  time 
and  space  involved  that  it  should  be  addressed  to  a 
given  generation  in  a  language  which  it  understood. 
Nor  was  it  wholly  without  definite  and  particular 
applications  —  sidelights,  so  to  speak,  upon  that  space 
in  history  within  which  it  falls.  But  history  itself  has 
shown  that  in  the  main  it  transcends  all  these  condi- 
tions, and  is  as  fresh  at  the  end  of  eighteen  centuries 
as  when  first  it  was  delivered. 

§  27.  (3)  Its  Method.  —  This  wonderful  adaptability  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  accounted  for  in  part  by  its  / 
extreme  simplicity.  If  it  had  been  a  doctrine  of  the 
schools,  something  of  the  fashion  of  the  schools  would 
have  adhered  to  it.  But,  as  it  was,  it  was  addressed 
chiefly  to  the  common  people  —  sometimes  to  congrega- 
tions in  synagogues,  sometimes  to  the  chance  company 
collected  in  private  houses,  more  often  still  to  casual 
gatherings  in  the  open  air. 

And  the  language  in  which  the  teaching  was  couched 
was  such  as  to  appeal  most  directly  to  audiences  like 
these.  As  a  rule  it  takes  hold  of  the  simplest  elements 
in  our  common  humanity,  '  das  allgemein  Menschliche.' 
The  trivial  incidents  of  everyday  life  are  made  to  yield  """^ 
their  lessons :  the  SQwer  scattering  his  seed,  the  house- 
wife baking  her  cakes  or  sweeping  the  house  to  find  a 
lost  piece  of  money,  the  shepherd  collecting  his  sheep, 
the  fishermen  drawing  in  their  net.  Sometimes  the 
story  which  forms  the  vehicle  for  the  teaching  takes  a 
higher    flight:     it    deals   with    landed    proprietors,   and 


68  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

banquets,  and  kings  with  their  subjects.  But  even 
then  there  seems  to  be  a  certain  deliberate  simpHfica- 
tion.  The  kings,  for  instance,  are  those  of  the  popular 
tale  rather  than  as  the  courtier  would  paint  them. 

§  28.  (4)  The    Parables.  —  We    have     been   naturally 
drawn  into  describing  that  which  is  most  characteristic 
in   the   outward   form   of    the   teaching   of    Jesus — His 
parables.      The   Greek   word   irapajioXri   is   used    in    the 
NT   in    a   wider   sense   than   that   in   which   we   are   in 
the   habit  of   using   it.      In   Lk  4^^  it  =  'proverb.'      In 
Mt    15^    (comp.    with    vv."' ^^■")    it  =  ' maxim,'    a    con- 
V      densed     moral     truth,    whether    couched    in    figurative 
language   or   not.      It    covers   as    well    brief    aphoristic 
sayings   {e.g.    Mk   3^    13"*  ||  ,  Lk   5^  6''^)  as   longer   dis- 
courses   in   which    there    is   a   real    '  comparison.'      But 
these  latter  are  the   '  parables '  in   our  modern  accepta- 
tion of  the  term  :  they  are  scenes  or  short  stories  taken 
I    from  nature  or  from  common   life,   which   present  in  a 
\   picturesque   and   vivid   way   some    leading    thought    or 
1  principle  which  is  capable  of   being  transferred   to   the 
\  higher  spiritual  life  of  man.     The  '  parable  '  in  a  some- 
what similar  sense    to   this   had  been  employed  in  OT 
and    by   the    Rabbis,   but    it    had    never    before    been 
employed  with  so  high  a  purpose,  on  so  large  a  scale, 
or  with  such  varied  application  and  unfailing  perfection 
of  form. 

We  may  say  that   the   parables   of   Jesus  are  of   two 

kinds.     In   some   the   element   of  '  comparison '  is  more 

t^     prominent.     In  these   the  parable  moves  as  it  were   in 

two   planes  —  one   that   of   the   scene  or  story  which  is 

\y  made   the   vehicle   for    the   lesson,   and    the   other   that 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  69 

of  the  higher  truth  which  it  is  sought  to  convey;  the 
essence  of  the  parable  lies  in  the  parallelism.  In  the 
other  kind  there  is  no  parallelism,  but  the  scene  or  •'--, 
the  story  is  just  a  typical  example  of  the  broader 
principle  which  it  is  intended  to  illustrate.  The 
parables  in  Mt  13,  Mk  4  all  belong  to  the  one  class, 
several  of  those  in  the  later  chapters  of  St.  Luke  (the 
Good  Samaritan,  the  Rich  Fool,  the  Rich  Man  and 
Lazarus,  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican)  belong  rather 
to  the  other. 

There  is  a   group   of   sayings    in   the   Fourth   Gospel 
to    which    is    given    the     name     TrapoLjXLa     rather     than         1^ 
Trapa/SoXy    (Jn    10*^,    cf.    i6"^-^),    though    the    latter    term 
would    not    have    been    inappropriate,    in    which    Jesus 
uses   the   method   of   comparison   to    bring   out    leading 
features   in    His   own   character   and    person.      In    this 
way   He   speaks   of    Himself    as    the    Good    Shepherd,    - 
the   Door   of    the   sheep,    the   Vine,   the    Light    of    the 
World.      These    sayings    form   a    class    by  themselves, 
and    from    the  peculiar  way  in  which  they  are  worked 
out  —  the   metaphor   and   the   object    explained    by   the 
metaphor  being  not  kept  apart  but  blended  and  fused 
together  —  are    commonly   classed    under    the    head  of    1 
'  allegory  '    rather    than  '  parable.'        This    is    another    I 
instance    in    which    we    draw    distinctions    where    the 
Greek  of  the  NT  would  not  have  drawn  them. 

§  29.  (5)  Interpretation  of  the  Parables.  —  To  this  day 
there    is   some    difference   of    opinion   as    to  the    inter- 
pretation   of    the    parables.      The    Patristic    writers    as     •^ 
a  rule    (though    with    some    exceptfons)     alIow""'them- 
selves   great   latitude   of    interpretation.      Any   point   of 


70  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

resemblance  to  any  detail  of  the  parable,  however 
subordinate,  justifies  in  their  eyes  a  direct  application 
of  that  detail.  A  familiar  instance  is  the  identification 
of  the  '  two  pence,'  which  the  Good  Samaritan  gives 
to  the  host,  with  the  two  Sacraments.  An  opposite 
modern  school  would  restrict  the  application  to  the 
leading  idea  which  the  parable  expresses.  It  is,  how- 
ever, fair  to  remember  that  the  parables  are  meant 
to  illustrate  the  laws  of  God's  dealings  with  men ; 
and  as  the  same  law  is  capable  of  many  particular 
applications,  all  such  applications  may  be  said  with 
equal  right  to  be  included  in  the  parable.  For 
instance,  the  parable  of  the  Two  Sons  may  be  as 
true  for  individuals  or  for  classes  as  it  is  for  nations 
or  groups  of  nations.  The  parable  of  the  Great 
Banquet  to  which  the  invited  guests  do  not  come, 
and  which  is  then  thrown  open  to  others  who  were  not 
invited,  no  doubt  points  directly  to  the  first  reception 
of  the  gospel,  but  it  is  equally  appropriate  to  every 
case  where  religious  privilege  is  found  to  give  no 
advantage,  and  the  absence  of  religious  privilege 
proves  no  insuperable  hindrance.  Any  such  range  of 
application  is  legitimate  and  interesting  ;  nor  does  the 
aptness  of  the  lesson  to  one  set  of  incidents  make  it 
any  less  apt  to  others  where  a  like  principle  is  at  work. 
Every  parable  has  its  central  idea,  and  whatever  can  be 
related  to  that  idea  may  be  fairly  brought  within  its 
scope.  To  press  mere  coincidences  with  the  picturesque 
accessories  of  a  parable  may  be  permissible  as  rhetoric, 
but  can  have  no  higher  value. 

§  30.  (6)  The  Purpose  of    Teaching  by  Parables.  —  If 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  7I 

we  had  before  us  only  the  fact  of  parabolic  teaching, 
with  the  parables  as  they  have  come  down  to  us  and 
the  actual  psychological  effect  which  they  are  seen  to 
exercise,  we  should  probably  not  hesitate  as  to  the 
reason  which  we  assigned  for  them.  The  parabolic 
form  is,  as  it  were,  a  barb  to  the  arrow  which  carries 
home  truth  to  the  mind.  The  extreme  beauty  of  this 
mode  of  teaching,  handled  as  it  is,  has  been  universally 
acknowledged.  If  simplicity  is  an  element  in  beauty, 
we  have  it  here  to  perfection.  But  when  simplicity 
is  united  to  profundity,  and  to  a  profundity  which 
comes  from  the  touching  of  elemental  chords  of  human 
feeling,  —  a  touching  so  delicate,  so  sure,  and  so  self- 
restrained,  which  reminds  us  of  the  finest  Greek  art 
with  an  added  spiritual  intensity  which  in  that  art  was 
the  one  thing  wanting,  —  we  have  indeed  a  product 
such  as  the  world  had  never  seen  before  and  will  not 
see  again.  We  seem  to  be  placed  for  the  moment  at 
the  very  centre  of  things :  on  the  one  hand  there  is  laid 
bare  before  us  the  human  heart  as  it  really  is  or  ought 
to  be,  with  all  its  perversities  and  affectations  stripped 
away;  and  on  the  other  hand  we  seem  to  be  admitted 
to  the  secret  council-chamber  of  the  Most  High,  and  to 
have  revealed  to  us  the  plan  by  which  He  governs  the 
world,  the  threads  in  all  the  tangled  skein  of  being. 
No  wonder  that  the  parables  have  exercised  such  an 
attractive  power,  not  over  any  one  class  or  race  of  men, 
but  over  humanity  wherever  it  is  found. 

Then  the  nature  of  the  parable,  at  once  presenting 
a  picture  to  the  mind  and  provoking  to  the  search  for 
a  hidden  meaning  or  application  beneath  it,  would  seem 
to  be  exactly  suited  to  the  paedagogic  method  of  Jesus, 


72  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

which  always  calls  for  some  responsive  effort  on  the 
part  of  man,  and  which  prefers  to  produce  its  effects 
not  all  at  once,  but  rather  with  a  certain  suspense  and 
delay,  so  that  the  good  seed  may  have  time  to  germinate 
and  strike  its  roots  more  deeply  into  the  soil. 

This  natural  action  of  the  method  of  teaching  by 
parables  seems  so  obvious  that  we  might  well  be  con- 
tent not  to  seek  any  further.  But  when  we  turn  to  the 
Gospels,  we  find  there  stated  a  motive  for  the  adoption 
of  this  method  of  teaching  which  is  wholly  different, 
and  it  must  be  confessed  at  first  sight  somewhat  para- 
doxical. All  three  Synoptists  agree  in  applying  to 
teaching  by  parables  the  half -denunciatory  passage 
Is  6^'°;  they  would  make  its  immediate  object  not  so 
much  to  reveal  truth  as  to  conceal  it  —  at  least  to 
conceal  it  for  the  moment  from  one  class  while  it  is 
revealed  to  another,  and  its  ulterior  object  to  aggravate 
the  guilt  of  those  from  whom  it  is  concealed.  And, 
what  is  still  more  remarkable,  all  three  Synoptists 
ascribe  the  use  of  this  quotation  to  our  Lord  Himself, 
as  though  it  really  expressed,  not  merely  the  result 
of  His  chosen  method  of  teaching,  but  its  deliberate 
purpose.  What  are  we  to  make  of  this  ?  One  group 
of  critics  would  roundly  deny  that  the  words  were  ever 
used  in  this  manner  by  our  Lord.  Julicher  {e.g.)  takes 
his  stand  on  Mk  4^  '  with  many  such  parables  spake 
he  the  word  unto  them,  as  they  were  able  to  hear  it,^ 
which  would  seem  to  make  the  method  a  tender  con- 
cession to  slowness  of  apprehension  rather  than  a 
means  of  aggravating  it.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
observe  that  the  quotation  is  attributed  to  our  Lord  in 
what  must  have  been  the  common  original  of   all  three 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  73 

Gospels,  i.e.  in  one  of  our  best  and  oldest  sources. 
And  while  such  passages  as  Jn  12^^*^  (where  the  same 
quotation  is  applied  by  the  evangelist)  and  Ac  28^^ 
(where  it  is  applied  by  St.  Paul)  would  show  that  it 
was  part  of  the  common  property  of  the  apostolic  age, 
the  fact  that  it  was  so  would  be  still  more  intelligible 
if  the  example  had  been  set  by  our  Lord  Himself.  Nor 
would  it  be  less  but  rather  more  appropriate  as  coming 
from  Him,  if  we  regard  it  as  summing  up  in  a  broad 
way  what  He  felt  was  and  must  be  for  many  of  those 
among  whom  He  moved  the  final  outcome  of  His 
mission.  The  lesson  is  very  similar  to  that  of  Jn  12^^ 
The  Son  of  Man  does  not  need  to  pass  judgment  on 
those  who  reject  Him.  His  word  judges  them  by  an 
automatic  process.  That  which  is  meant  for  their  life 
becomes  to  them  an  occasion  of  falling,  when  from 
indolence  or  self-will  it  makes  no  impression  upon 
them.  This  was  the  actual  course  of  things ;  it  was 
a  course  rendered  inevitable  by  the  laws  which  God 
had  laid  down,  and  which  in  that  sense  might  be  re- 
garded as  designed  by  Him.  And  inasmuch  as  the 
Son  associates  Himself  with  the  providential  action  of 
the  Father,  it  might  be  also  spoken  of  as  part  of  His 
own  design.  It  is  so,  however,  rather  in  the  remoter 
degree  in  which,  allowing  for  the  contrariant  action  of 
human  wills,  whatever  is  is  also  ordained,  than  as 
directly  purposed  before  the  appeal  has  been  made  and 
rejected.  It  belongs  to  that  department  of  providential 
action  which  is  not  primary  and  due  to  immediate 
Divine  initiative,  but  secondary  or  contingent  upon 
human  failure. 

There  is  then  perhaps  sufficient  reason  to  think  that 


74  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

the  words  may  after  all  have  been  spoken,  much  as  we 
have  them,  by  our  Lord.  But  granting  this,  we  should 
still  not  be  forbidden  to  surmise  that  they  are  some- 
what out  of  place.  Standing  where  they  do  they  come 
to  us  with  a  shock  of  strange  severity,  which  would 
be  mitigated  if  they  could  be  put  later  in  the  ministry, 
where  they  occur  in  St.  John.  The  transference  may 
have  been  due  to  the  position  which  the  original  pas- 
sage occupies  in  Isaiah,  where  it  also  serves  as  a  sort 
of  programme  of  the  prophet's  mission.  There,  too, 
the  arrangement  may  conceivably  represent  the  actual 
historical  order,  but  it  may  also  represent  the  result 
of  later  experience,  which  for  didactic  effect  is  placed 
at  the  beginning  of  the  career  rather  than  at  the  end. 

b.  Contents  of  the  Teaching. 

§  31.    There    are    five    distinctive    and    characteristic 

topics  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  — :%_ -~ 

(i)   The  Fatherhood  of  God. 

(2)  The  Kingdom  of  God. 

(3)  The  Subjects  or  Members  of  the  Kingdom. 

(4)  The  Messiah. 

(5)  The  Paraclete  and  the  Tri-unity  of  God. 

With  that  simplicity  which  we  have  seen  to  be  so 
marked  a  feature  in  His  teaching,  Jesus  selects  two 
of  the  most  familiar  of  all  relations  to  be  the  types 
round  which  He  groups  His  teaching  in  regard  to  God 
and  man  —  the  family  and  the  organized  state ;  God 
stands  to  man  in  the  relation  at  once  of  Father  and 
of  King.  These  two  types  by  no  means  exclude  each 
other,  but  each  helps  to  complete  the  idea  derived  from 
the  other  without  which  it  might  be  one-sided.     At  the 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  75 

same  time,  in  different  connexions,  first  one   and   then 
the  other  becomes  more  prominent.     Thus,  when  stress 
is   laid  upon  the  Divine  attributes,  God  appears  chiefly     I 
in   the   character   of   Father ;    when    attention    is   turned 
to   the   complex   relations   of   men   to   Him   and   to  one     , 
another,   they  are   more   commonly  regarded   under  the     ^ 
figure  of  a  Kingdom. 

§  32.  (i)  The  Fatherhood  of  God.  —  It  has  just  been  / 
said  that  the  doctrine  that  God  is  Father  by  no  means 
excludes  the  doctrine  that  He  is  also  King.  This  idea, 
too,  is  repeatedly  put  forward  (Mt  5^  18^^  22^  etc.). 
The  title  '  King '  brings  out  what  in  modern  language 
we  are  accustomed  to  call  the  '  transcendence '  of  God. 
But  the  recognition  of  this  was,  as  we  saw  (p.  13,  sup^^ 
a  strong  point  in  the  contemporary  Judaism,  and  there- 
fore it  needed  no  special  emphasis.  It  was  otherwise 
with  the  idea  of  Fatherhood. 

Not  that  this  idea  was  unknown  to  the  pagan 
religions,  and  still  less  to  the  religion  of  Israel.  From 
Homer  onwards  Zeus  had  borne  the  name  '  Father  of 
gods  and  men.'  But  this  was  a  superficial  idea:  it 
meant  little  more  than  '  originator.'  This  sense  also 
appears  in  the  older  Jewish  literature,  but  with  further 
connotations  added  to  it.  God  is  more  particularly  the 
Father  of  His  people  Israel  (cf.  Dt  14^  32^  Jer  ^^  7^\^-  2»), 
in  a  yet  deeper  sense  of  the  righteous  in  Israel  (Is  63^^), 
and,  though  not  with  the  same  wealth  of  meaning,  of 
the  individual  (Mai  2^",  Sir  23^-  ■*). 

It  is  the  tenderest  side  of  the  teaching  of  OT 
(Ps  103^^)  which  is  now  taken  up  and  developed.  It 
becomes   indeed   the   corner-stone  of    the    NT   teaching    ^^ 


y6  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

about  God.  The  name  '  Father '  becomes  in  NT  what 
the  name  Jehovah  (Jahveh)  was  in  OT,  the  fullest 
\  embodiment  of  revelation.  If  it  is  prominent  in  the 
apostolic  writings,  this  is  traceable  ultimately  to  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  (cf.  Ro  8"  and  comms.).  The  title 
belongs  primarily  to  Jesus  Himself  as  'the  Son'  (o 
UaTrjp  fiov,  esp.  Mt  11^).  Through  Him  it  descends 
to  His  followers  (6  IlaT^p  v/itov,  6  UaTi^p  aov,  Mt 
^16.  «.  48    61.  *.  6.  8.  9.  14.  15  et^.).     But    the    love  of    God 

as  Father  extends  beyond  these  limits  even  to  *  the 
unthankful  and  evil '  (Lk  6^,  Mt  5**).  The  presentation 
of  God  as  Father  culminates  in  the  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son.  Older  conceptions  of  God  find  their 
counterpart  in  the  Elder  Brother  of  this  parable  (Lk 
j^25fif.  contrasted  with  v.^).  The  application  which  is 
thus  made  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  invests  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  with  wonderful  tenderness  and  beauty 
(Mt  6^2  7"  io29-  30,  Lk  12^2  etc.). 

1^  §  33.  (2)  77ie  Kingdom  of  God.  —  If  the  conception  of 
God  as  Father  does  not  exclude  His  majesty  as  King, 
no  more  does  the  conception  of  His  Kingdom  exclude 
that  of  children  gathered  together  in  His  family.  Still, 
the  leading  term  to  denote  those  active  relations  of 
God  with  man,  with  which  the  mission  of  Jesus  is 
specially  connected,  is  ^  /Sao-iAet'a  toO  Qtov  or  twv 
ovpavZiv. 

The  use  of  these  terms  suggests  a  number  of  ques- 
tions which  are  still  much  debated,  (i.)  Were  both 
names  originally  used  ?  Or  if  one  is  to  be"  preferred, 
which  ?  (ii.)  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  ? 
Does    /Sao-iXcux  =  '  kingdom  '    or    *  reign  '  ?      (iii.)    When 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  TJ 

we  have  determined  this,  with  what  order  of  ideas  is 
the  phrase  to  be  associated  ?  With  the  later  Judaism  ? 
or  with  the  teaching  of  the  prophets  ?  Or  does  it 
belong  to  the  more  novel  element  in  the  teaching  of  our 
Lord  ?  (iv.)  Is  the  Kingdom  merely  conceived  of  from 
the  side  of  man  or  from  the  side  of  God  ?  Is  it  some- 
thing which  man  works  out  or  which  is  bestowed  upon 
him?  (v.)  Is  it  present  or  future?  Was  it  in  course 
of  realization  during  the  lifetime  of  Jesus  Himself,  or  is 
it  mainly  eschatological  ?  (vi.)  Is  it  inward  or  out- 
ward? A  moral  reformation  of  the  founding  of  a 
society?  (vii.)  Was  the  conception  as  at  first  framed 
national  or  universal? 

These  questions  are  put  as  alternatives.  And  they 
are  usually  so  regarded.  But  it  may  be  well  to  say  at 
once  that  in  almost  every  case  there  seems  to  be  real 
evidence  for  both  sides  of  the  proposition  ;  so  that  the 
inference  is  that  the  conception  to  which  they  relate  was 
in  fact  many-sided,  and  included  within  itself  a  number 
of  different  nuances,  all  more  or  less  valid.  And  the 
reason  for  this  appears  to  be,  that  our  Lord  took  up 
a  conception  which  He  found  already  existing,  and, 
although  He  definitely  discarded  certain  aspects  of  it, 
left  others  as  they  were,  some  with  and  some  without  a 
more  express  sanction,  while  He  added  new  ones.  The 
centre  or  focus  of  the  idea  is  thus  gradually  shifted ; 
and  while  parts  of  it  belong  to  so  much  of  the  older 
current  conception  as  was  not  explicitly  repealed, 
other  parts  of  it  are  a  direct  expression  of  the  new 
spirit  introduced  into  it.  The  one  element  definitely 
expelled  was  that  which  associated  the  inauguration  of 
the  Kingdom  with  political  violence  and  revolution. 


y8  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

(i.)  T/ie  Natne.  —  It  is  well  known  that  the  phrase 
i)  I3a<n\e.ia  toiv  ovpavwv  for  17  jSaa:  t.  Oeov  is  a  peculi- 
arity of  the  First  Gospel  (where  it  occurs  thirty-two 
times),  and  that  it  receives  no  sanction  from  the  other 
Synoptics.  Neither  can  Jn  3^,  where  the  reading  is 
distinctly  Western,  be  quoted  in  support  of  it.  Hence 
some  have  thought  that  it  was  a  coinage  of  Matthew. 
It  occurs,  however,  also  in  £v.  sec.  Heb.  (Handmann, 
p.  89) ;  and  the  fact  that  ^a(T.  t.  6.  is  found  in  Mt 
12^  2i'^-  ^  would  go  to  show  that  the  evangelist  had 
no  real  objection  to  that  form,  while  the  corresponding 
phrase  TraxT/p  6  iv  rots  ovpavol';  though  it  disappears 
from  Lk  11^  is  verified  by  Mk  11^.  Moreover,  we 
know  that  '  heaven '  was  a  common  metonymy  for 
'God'  in  the  language  of  the  time  (cf.  also  Mk  10-^, 
Lk  10^  12*^),  and  that  the  particular  phrase  'kingdom 
of  heaven '  (though  not  exactly  in  the  sense  usually 
assigned  to  it;  see  below  under  ii.)  occurs  repeatedly 
in  the  Talmud.  It  seems,  therefore,  on  the  whole 
probable  that  both  forms  were  used  by  our  Lord 
Himself.  In  any  case  they  may  be  regarded  as 
equivalents. 

(ii.)  Meaning.  —  The  phrase  in  both  its  forms  is 
ambiguous :  it  may  mean  either  '  kingdom  '  or  '  reign,' 
'  sovereignty,'  *  rule  '  of  heaven,  or  of  God.  It  appears 
that  in  the  Talmud  the  latter  signification  is  the  more 
common  (Schtirer,  NT  Zeitgesch?  ii.  539  n.  [Eng.  tr. 
II.  ii.  171]  ;  Edersheim,  Life  and  Ti?nes,  etc.  i.  267  f.). 
And  though  the  former  is  that  more  usually  adopted  by 
commentators,  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  re- 
course should  not  be  had  to  the  latter  where  it  is  more 
natural  (as,  <f.^.,  in  Lk   17^-^').     The  phrase  covers  both 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  79 

senses,  and  the  one  will  frequently  be  found  to  shade 
off  into  the  other.  The  best  definition  known  to  the 
writer  is  one  given  incidentally  by  Dr.  Hort  {Life  and 
Letters^  ii.  273),  'the  world  of  invisible  laws  by  which 
God  is  ruling  and  blessing  His  creatures.'  This  is  the 
most  fundamental  meaning ;  all  others  are  secondary. 
The  '  laws '  in  question  are  '  a  world,'  inasmuch  as  they 
have  a  connexion  and  coherence  of  their  own ;  they  form 
a  system,  a  cosmos  within  the  cosmos  ;  they  come  direct 
from  '  heaven,'  or  from  God  ;  and  they  are  '  invisible  ' 
in  their  origin,  though  they  may  work  their  way  to 
visibility. 

(iii.)  Associations.  —  The  sense  just  assigned  was  that 
which  was  most  fundamental  in  the  thought  of  Jesus. 
It  was  that  which  He  saw  ought  to  be  the  true  sense, 
however  much  it  might  be  missed  by  His  contem- 
poraries. It  was  deeper  and  subtler  than  the  concep- 
tion of  Psalmist  and  Prophet,  even  than  the  bright 
and  exhilarating  picture  of  Ps  145""'^  because  it  was 
compatible  with  any  kind  of  social  condition,  and  be- 
cause it  did  not  turn  mainly  on  the  majestic  exercise 
of  power.  And  if  this  was  true  of  the  later  and  more 
developed  conception,  much  more  was  it  true  of  the 
earlier  notion  of  the  theocracy,  which  was  simply  that 
of  the  Israelite  State  with  a  Prophet  or  Judge  at  the 
head  instead  of  a  King  (i  S  12"^).  The  contemporaries 
of  Jesus  when  they  spoke  of  the  '  Kingdom  of  God ' 
thought  chiefly  of  an  empire  contrasted  with  the  great 
world-empires,  more  particularly  the  Roman,  which  galled 
them  at  the  moment.  And  the  two  features  which 
caught  their  imagination  most  were  the  throwing  off 
of  the   hated  yoke  and   the   transference   of   supremacy 


80  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

from  the  heathen  to  Israel.  This  was  to  be  brought 
about  by  a  catastrophe  which  was  to  close  the  existing 
order  of  things,  and  which  therefore  took  a  shape  that 
was  eschatological. 

This  eschatological  and  catastrophic  side  Jesus  did 
not  repudiate,  though  He  gave  a  different  turn  to  it, 
but  the  essence  of  His  conception  was  independent 
of  all  convulsions.  The  simplest  paraphrase  for  '  the 
Kingdom  of  God '  is  the  clause  which  follows  the  peti- 
tion for  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  in  the  Lord's 
Prayer:  '  Thy  will  be  done  on  earth,  as  it  is  in  heaven.' 
The  only  difference  is  that  the  Prayer  perhaps  hints 
rather  more  at  the  co-operation  of  human  wills.  This  is 
not  excluded  in  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom,  which  is,  how- 
ever, primarily  the  working  out  of  the  Will  of  God  by  God 
Himself. 

(iv.)  The  Nature  of  the  Kingdotn :  hota  far  super- 
natural ? —  The  very  name  of  the  Kingdom  'of  heaven 
or  of  God '  implies  that  it  has  its  origin  in  the  world 
above.  It  '  comes '  (epx^crOai,  Mt  6'",  Mk  g^,  Lk 
11^  1*7^;  lyy(.t,uv,  Mt  3^  4"  lo''  etc.;  <}>9dv€Lv,  Mt 
i2^*  =  Lk  II-'');  it  is  'given'  (Mt  21^^)  and  'received' 
(Mk  lo^'  =  Lk  18^^)  ;  it  is  '  prepared  '  by  God  (Mt  25^)  ; 
it  is  '  inherited '  (/^.),  and  men  '  enter  into  '  it  (Mt  5^ 
19^,  Jn  3^);  it  is  an  object  of  'search'  (Mt  6''^  =  Lk 
i2^\  Mt  13*^).  All  this  means  that  it  is  not  built  up 
by  the  labour  of  man,  it  is  not  a  product  of  develop- 
ment from  below,  but  '  of  the  creative  activity  of  God  ' 
(Liitgert,  jRei'eh  Gottes,  p.  26).  It  is  a  gift  bestowed, 
not  something  to  be  done,  but  something  to  be  enjoyed 
('Nie  eine  Aufgabe,  wohl  aber  eine  Gabe,'  Holtzmann, 
JVT  Th.  p.  202,  partly  after  Liitgert).     It  is  a  prize,  the 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  8 1 

highest   of   all   prizes   (Mt  13^*^^),  corresponding  to   the 
stmimu?n  bonum  of  pagan  philosophy. 

This  part  of  the  conception  has  a  considerable  range, 
according  as  the  context  points  to  the  popular  view  of  the 
Messianic  Kingdom  as  implying  outward  conditions  of 
splendour,  abundance,  and  enjoyment,  or  as  it  points  to 
what  we  have  called  the  inner  thought  of  Jesus,  the  invis- 
ible laws  of  God's  working,  taken  into  and  welcomed  by 
the  individual  soul,  as  in  the  parables  of  the  Pearl  and 
1^    the  Treasure  in  the  Field. 

These  parables  show  that  there  is  a  place,  though  a 
subordinate  place,  left  for  human  effort,  the  co-operation 
of   the   human   will   with   the   Divine.      The   process   of 
'  seeking '  implies   both  effort   and  renunciation.      There 
must  be  a  concentrating  of  the  powers  of  the  soul  upon   , 
the  Will  of  God,  if  that  Will  is  to  be  really  done ;  but  / 
where    it    is    done    it    brings    its    own   exceeding  great  ( 
reward  (Lk  6^*). 

From  this  point  of  view  it  may  be  said,  with  Holtz-       , 
mann  {NT  Th.  i.  202-207),  ^^^^  the  negative  side  of  the       ,' 
conception     is     the    Forgiveness    of    Sins    as    the    first 
condition  of   entrance    into    the  Kingdom,   and   that   the 
positive  side  of   it   is  the  active   practice  of   Righteous-  .    - 
^    ness  with  the  peace  and  contentment  which  that  practice 
brings. 

(v.)  Present  or  Future?  —  There  can  be  no  real  ques- 
tion that  the  Kingdom  is  presented  in  both  lights  as 
present  ^nd  as  future.  Strictly  speaking,  the  future  is 
divided,  and  the  notes  of  time  are  threefold  —  present,  t--" 
near  future,  and  more  distant  future.  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  following  passages:  Mt  12-^  (=  Lk  n^)  'If 
I  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cast  out  demons,  then  is  the 
6 


82  TEACHING   AND   MIRACLES 

Kingdom   of   God   come   (t(j>Oaaev)   upon   you  ' ;    Mk    i" 

(  =  Mt  4^^  'The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the    Kingdom   of 

God    is    at   hand '   (ryyyt/cev) ;    Mk   9'  ||    '  There   be   some 

here  .  .  .  which  shall  in  nowise  taste  of  death  till  they 

see  the  Kingdom  of  God  come  (eXrjXvdvlav)  with  power.' 

The  only  one  of  these  passages  about  which  there   can 

be   any   doubt    is   the    second   (see   above,   p.    35),    and 

even    that   belongs  to   the    common   groundwork   of   the 

Synoptic  tradition,   and  it  is  supported  by  Mt  10^  ||.     If 

the  latest  of  these  dates  still  falls  within  the  lifetime  of 

the  then  generation,  there  is  a   group  of  parables   (the 

I  Mustard    Seed,    the   Wheat    and    Tares,    the    Drag-net) 

[  which  would  seem  at  once  to  bring  the  Kingdom   into 

I     \  the  present,  and  to  postpone  its  consummation. 

These  apparent  inconsistencies  are  probably  to  be 
explained  in  the  same  way  as  others  which  we  meet 
with.  The  future  coming,  the  more  or  less  distant 
coming,  of  which  the  Son  Himself  does  not  know  the 
day  or  the  hour,  is  the  eschatological  coming  of  the 
current  expectation,  which,  if  we  follow  our  authorities, 
we  must  believe  that  Jesus  also  shared.  There  was, 
however,  a  certain  ambiguity  even  in  this  expectation 
as  popularly  held :  it  was  not  clear  exactly  in  what 
relation  of  time  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  and  the 
establishment  of  His  Kingdom  stood  to  the  end  of  all 
things.  And  this  ambiguity  was  necessarily  heightened 
by  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  the 
conviction  which  gradually  forced  itself  upon  the  minds 
of  the  disciples  that  there  must  needs  be  a  double 
Coming,  —  one  in  shame,  the  other  in  triumph ;  one 
therefore  which  for  them  was  past,  and  another  still  in 
the  future. 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS  83 

But,  apart  from  all  this,  it  will  be  apparent  that  the 
more  distinctive  conception  of  the  Kingdom  as  the 
'  world  of  invisible  laws  '  by  which  God  works  is  not 
subject  to  the  same  limitations  of  time.  In  this  sense 
it  embraces  the  whole  providential  scheme  of  things 
from  the  beginning ;  though,  as  we  have  said,  it  is 
really  a  cosmos  within  the  cosmos,  and  it  has  its  cul- 
minating periods  and  moments,  such  as  was  above  all 
that  which  dates  from  the  Incarnation.  The  most 
characteristic  expression  of  this  aspect  of  the  Kingdom 
would  be  the  parables  of  the  Leaven  and  of  the  Seed 
growing  secretly. 

(vi.)  Inward  or  Outward?  —  A  like  conclusion  holds 
good  for  the  question  which  we  have  next  to  ask 
ourselves :  Are  we  to  think  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  as 
visible  or  as  invisible  ?  Is  it  an  influence,  a  force  or 
collection  of  forces,  or  is  it  an  institution  ?  We  are 
familiar  with  the  very  common  and  often  quite  super- 
ficial identification  of  the  Kingdom  with  the  Church. 
Is  this  justified  ?  Many  recent  writers  answer  this 
question  emphatically.  No  (list  with  reff.  in  Holtzmann, 
NT  Th.  i.  208).  And  it  is  true  that  there  are  certain 
passages  by  which  it  seems  to  be  excluded. 

Conspicuous  among  these  are  the  verses  Lk  1720.21  Quk  epxerat 
7}  /3.  T.  6.  fiera  irapaTrjp'qcreiiJS.  ov5k  ipovcriv,  I5oi)  uiSe  ^  ^/cet.  t'Soi)  yap 
ij  /3.  T.  8.  ivrbs  vfiQv  iffrlp.  A  majority  of  leading  German  scholars, 
including  Schiirer  (Die  Predigt.  J.  C.  p.  18)  and  Holtzmann  (with 
a  slight  modification,  'in  your  reach'),  take  the  last  words  as 
meaning  *  in  your  midst,'  the  main  ground  being  that  they  are 
addressed  to  the  Pharisees.  But  Field  seems  to  have  shown 
(Ot.  Norv.  ad.  loc.~)  that  this  interpretation  is  lexically  untenable 
(•no  sound  example'),  and  that  the  better  rendering  is  in  animis 
vestris. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  parables  like  the  Wheat  and 


84  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

the  Tares  and  the  Drag-net  are  most  naturally  explained 
of  a  visible  community;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  popular  expectation  was  of  a  visible  kingdom, 
such  as  that  in  which  the  sons  of  Zebedee  sought  for 
a  chief  place. 

If  we  keep  to  the  clue  which  we  have  hitherto 
followed,  the  facts  will  be  sufficiently  clear.  The  King- 
dom in  its  highest  and  most  Christian  sense  is  the 
working  of  '  invisible  laws '  which  penetrate  below  the 
,  surface  and  are  gradually  progressive  and  expansive  in 
'  their  operation.  But  in  this  as  in  other  cases  spiritual 
forces  take  to  themselves  an  outward  form ;  they  are 
enshrined  in  a  vessel  of  clay,  finer  or  coarser  as  the  case 
may  be,  not  only  in  men  as  individuals  but  in  men  as 
a  community  or  communities.  The  society  then  becomes 
at  once  a  vehicle  and  instrument  of  the  forces  by  which 
it  is  animated,  not  a  perfect  vehicle  or  a  perfect  instru- 
ment,—  a  field  of  wheat  mingled  with  tares,  a  net 
containing  bad  fish  as  well  as  good,  —  but  analogous  to 
those  other  visible  institutions  by  which  God  accom- 
plishes His  gracious  purposes  amongst  men. 

(vii.)  National  or  Universal?  —  The  same  principle 
holds  good  throughout  the  whole  of  this  analysis  of  the 
idea  of  the  Kingdom.  The  aptest  figure  to  express  it 
is  that  of  growth.  It  is  a  germ,  secretly  and  silently 
insinuated,  and  secretly  and  silently  working  until  it 
puts  forth  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full 
corn  in  the  ear.  It  is  a  mistake  to  cut  a  section  of  that 
which  is  thus  ceaselessly  expanding,  and  to  label  it  with 
a  name  which  might  be  true  at  one  particular  moment 
but  would  not  be  true  at  the  next.  The  Kingdom  of 
God  is  not  the  theocracy  of  the  OT,  nor  the  eschato- 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  85 

logical  Kingdom  of  the  Apocalypses,  nor  the  Christian 
Church  of  the  present  day,  or  of  the  Middle  Ages,  or  of 
the  Fathers,  These  are  phases  through  which  it  passes  ; 
but  it  outgrows  one  after  the  other.  For  this  reason, 
because  He  foresaw  this  inevitable  and  continuous 
growth,  the  chief  Founder  and  permanent  Vicegerent 
of  the  Kingdom  showed  Himself,  as  we  might  think, 
indifferent  to  the  precise  degree  of  extension  which 
it  was  to  receive  during  His  life  on  earth ;  He  was 
content  to  say  that  He  '  was  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel'  (Mt  15^),  though  within  a 
generation  His  gospel  was  about  to  be  carried  to  the 
ends  of  the  then  known  earth.  It  was  enough  that  the 
seed  was  planted  —  planted  in  a  soil  suited  to  it,  and 
under  conditions  that  ensured  its  full  vitality,  *  like  a 
tree  by  the  streams  of  water,  that  bringeth  forth  its 
fruit  in  its  season,  whose  leaf  also  doth  not  wither.'  It 
is  characteristic  of  God's  processes  that  there  is  no 
hurry  or  impatience  about  them ;  the  Master  was  not  so 
anxious  to  reap  immediate  fruit  as  the  disciple  (Ro  i^^), 
and  therefore  He  calmly  left  it  to  His  followers  to  see 
'  greater  things '  than  He  saw  HimseK  (Jn  14^)  ;  but 
these  *  greater  things '  are  none  the  less  virtually  His 
own. 

§  34.  (3)  The  Members  of  the  Kingdom.  —  As  the 
'  Reign  of  God,'  the  /8ao-tXeta  tov  Ocov  denotes  certain 
Divine  forces  of  laws  which  are  at  work  in  the  world ; 
as  the  Kingdom  of  God  it  was  at  most  stages  a  society, 
but  at  all  stages  a  definite  sphere  or  area,  into  which 
men  might  enter,  and,  by  entering,  become  partakers 
of  the  same  Divine  forces  or  subject  to  the  same  Divine 


i^ 


86  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

laws.  It  was  therefore  a  matter  of  much  moment  what 
were  the  conditions  of  entrance  into  the  Kingdom,  and 
what  was  the  character  impressed  upon  its  members. 
The  two  things  run  into  each  other,  because  it  was 
required  of  those  who  entered  that  they  should  possess 
at  least  the  germs  of  the  character  to  be  developed  in 
them. 

(i.)  Conditions  of  Entrance. — These  are  clearly  laid 
down :  '  Except  ye  turn,  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the   kingdom  of   heaven  ' 

\^  (Mt  i8^).  There  was  to  be  a  definite  change  of  mind,  a 
break  with  the  sinful  past.  This  was  to  be  ratified  by 
submission  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  which,  in  the  dis- 
course with  Nicodemus,  is  described  as  a  new  birth  of 
'  water  and  Spirit '  (Jn  3').  The  entrance  into  the 
Kingdom   is    something   more   than    a   deliberate  act   of 

v^  the  man  himself,  it  is  a  self-surrender  to  Divine  in- 
fluences. The  response  on  the  part  of  God  is  forgive- 
ness, which  is  the  permanent  concomitant  of  baptism, 
not  only  that  of  John,  but  also  that  in  the  name  of 
Christ  (Mk  i^||,  comp.  with  Ac  2^,  Lk  24*'  etc.). 

(ii.)  The  Character  of  the  Alembers.  —  The  typical 
character  of  the  members  of  the  Kingdom  is  that  of  a 

V  '  little  child,'  in  which  the  prominent  features  are 
innocence,  simplicity  of  aim,  absence  of  self-assertion, 
trustfulness,  and  openness  to  influences  from  above. 
A  sketch  of  such  a  character  is  given  in  the  Beatitudes 
(Mt  5^*"^;  the  ||  in  Lk  6^"-*^  refers  rather  to  conditions 
or  circumstances  suited  to  the  character).  The  Chris- 
tian ideal  here  depicted  stands  out  in  marked  contrast 
to  most  other  ideals  of  what  is  admirable  in  man.  The 
qualities     commended    ('  poor     in     spirit '  —  where     the 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  87 

Matthaean  gloss  is  in  any  case  right  in  sense,  — '  meek,' 
'merciful,'  'pure  in  heart,'  'peacemakers')  are  all  of 
the  gentle,  submissive,  retiring  order.  And  this  is 
fully  borne  out  by  other  sayings,  the  cheek  turned  to 
the  smiter,  the  litigant  forestalled,  the  requisition  of 
labour  offered  freely,  and  even  doubled  (Mt  5^^'||), 
enemies  to  be  loved,  prosecutors  to  be  prayed  for  {ib. 
vv.*^-  *^),  the  sword  to  be  sheathed  (Mt  26^-),  the  duties 
of  charity  strongly  inculcated  (Lk  10^"^),  the  duty  of 
forgiveness  of  injuries  (Mt  18-^*^),  service  greater  than 
authority  (Lk  22^^),  And  it  is  noticeable  that  the 
same  type  of  character  is  praised  by  St.  Paul  (Ro  12^^ 
'  Be  not  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with 
good';  cf.  ch.  13).  The  whole  duty  of  man  is  summed 
up  in  love  to  God  and  love  to  one's  neighbour  (again  cf. 
Ro  13^^").  We  observe,  too,  that  the  ethical  teaching 
of  Jesus  is  almost  confined  to  that  side  of  ethics  which 
touches  upon  religion.  Allusions  to  civic  and  industrial 
duties  are  very  few,  and  those  negative  rather  than 
positive  (Mt  18-"^  22^1  =Ro  13^). 

(iii.)  Paradoxes  of  Christianity.  —  It  is  only  natural 
that  these  features  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  should  be 
taken  hold  of  and  made  a  charge  against  Christianity, 
as  they  have  been  from  Suetonius  onwards  {Dojnit.  15, 
'  contemptissimae  inertiae,'  of  Flavins  Clemens,  probably 
as  a  Christian;  cf.  Tertull.  Apol.  42,  '  infructuosi  in 
negotiis  dicimur ').  And  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
even  yet  the  full  intention  of  our  Lord  has  been 
fathomed,  and  the  exact  place  of  the  specifically  Chris- 
tian ideal  in  relation  to  civic  and  social  duties  ascer- 
tained.    The  following  suggestions  may  be  offered. 

The   precepts    in    question   were    probably   addressed 


-y 


V 


88  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

in  the  first  instance,  not  to  promiscuous  multitudes, 
but  to  the  disciples.  If  certain  passages  (as  Mt  5^)  may 
be  quoted  to  the  contrary,  it  should  be  remembered 
that  these  introductory  notes  as  to  the  circumstances 
under  which  discourses  were  spoken  are  among  the 
least  trustworthy  parts  of  the  Gospel  tradition,  and  are 
often  nothing  more  than  vague  conjectures  of  the  evan- 
gelists. The  type  of  character  described  bears  on  its 
face  the  marks  of  being  intended  for  the  little  com- 
munity   of    Christians    (cf.     Latham,   Pastor    Pastorum, 

P-  253)- 

As  such  we  can  see  that  it  had  a  very  special  appro- 
priateness. It  was  not  an  accident  that  Christianity 
is  the  religion  of  the  Crucified.  The  Cross  is  but  the 
culminating  expression  of  a  spirit  which  was  char- 
acteristic of  it  throughout.  Its  peculiar  note  is  Victory 
through  Suffering.  An  idea  like  that  of  Islam,  making 
its  way  by  the  sword,  was  abhorrent  to  it  from  the 
first.  Jesus  came  to  be  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  but 
the  narratives  of  the  Temptation  teach  us  that,  from 
the  very  beginning  of  His  career.  He  stripped  off  from 
His  conception  of  Messiahship  all  that  was  political, 
all  thought  of  propagating  His  claims  by  force.  A 
new  mode  of  propagating  religion  was  deliberately 
chosen,  and  carried  through  with  uncompromising 
thoroughness.  The  disciple  was  not  above  His  Mas- 
ter ;  and  the  example  which  Jesus  set  in  founding 
His  faith  by  dying  for  it,  was  an  example  which  His 
disciples  were  called  upon  to  follow  into  all  its  logical 
consequences.  Christianity,  the  true  Christianity,  carries 
no  arms  ;  it  wins  its  way  by  lowly  service,  by  patience,  by 
self-sacrifice. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  89 

History  shows  that  there  are  no  instruments  of  re- 
ligious propaganda  comparable  to  these.  It  also  shows 
that  the  type  of  character  connected  with  them  is  of 
the  very  highest  attractiveness  and  beauty.  Is  it  a 
complete  type,  a  type  to  which  we  can  apply  the 
Kantian  maxim,  *  So  act  as  if  your  action  was  to  be 
a  law  for  all  human  beings  '  ?  This  would  seem  to  be 
more  than  we  ought  to  say.  It  is  not  clear  that  the 
Christian  type  would  be  what  it  is  if  it  were  not  built 
upon,  and  if  it  did  not  presuppose,  a  certain  structure 
of  society,  to  which  other  motives  had  contributed. 
The  ethical  ideal  of  Christianity  is  the  ideal  of  a  Church. 
It  does  not  follow  that  it  is  also  the  ideal  of  the  State. 
If  we  are  to  say  the  truth,  we  must  admit  that  parts  of 
it  would  become  impracticable  if  they  were  transferred 
from  the  individual  standing  alone  to  governments  or 
individuals  representing  society.  It  could  not  be  in- 
tended that  the  officers  of  the  law  should  turn  the 
cheek  to  the  criminal.  The  apostles  were  to  bear 
no  sword,  but  the  judge  'beareth  not  the  sword  in 
vain.' 

May  we  not  say  that  the  functions  of  Christian  morals 
—  specifically  Christian  morals  —  are  these?  (i)  At  their 
first  institution  to  form  a  vehicle,  the  only  possible 
vehicle,  for  the  Christian  religion.  So  far  as  Chris- 
tianity has  taken  a  real  and  genuine  hold  upon  society, 
it  is  through  these  means  and  no  others.  Other  things 
may  have  commended  it  for  a  time,  but  no  trust  can  be 
placed  in  them.  (2)  The  Christian  motive  acting  in 
the  midst  of  other  motives  gradually  leavens  and 
modifies  them,  imparting  to  them  something  which 
they  had  not    before.     If    we    look    round    us    at    the 


90  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

principles  which  at  this  moment  regulate  the  action  of 
States,  in  their  external  or  international  relations  as 
well  as  those  which  are  internal,  we  shall  see  that  if 
these  principles  are  not  wholly  Christian,  they  are  also 
not  pagan.  They  have  a  certain  coherence,  and  they 
mark  a  very  conspicuous  advance  as  compared  with 
the  principles  of  the  ancient  world.  Christianity  has 
shown  a  power  of  modifying  what  it  does  not  altogether 
supplant.  The  world  even  outside  Christianity  is  still 
God's  world.  It  is  a  world  of  which  the  essential  char- 
acteristic is  that  it  is  progressive ;  and  it  may  conduce 
most  to  this  progress  that  it  should  be  brought  under 
the  influence  of  the  Christian  precept,  not  pure  but  in 
dilution.  And  (3)  may  we  not  draw  from  this  the 
augury  that  in  the  end,  at  some  time  which  we  cannot 
see,  the  social  structure  may  be  still  more  fully  recast, 
under  the  influence  of  Christianity :  '  Nation  shall  not 
lift  up  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn 
war  any  more  '  ?  We  can  conceive  a  condition  of  things 
in  which  the  Church  became  coextensive  with  the  State, 
and  in  which  religion  penetrated  the  body  politic  in  a 
sense  in  which  it  has  never  done  so  yet.  When  that 
time  came,  conduct  which  now  would  be  only  quixotic 
might  be  rational,  and  required  by  the  public  conscience. 

When  the  verse  Mt  5*^  '  Give  to  him  that  asketh 
thee,'  etc.,  is  criticized  from  the  point  of  view  of  modern 
political  economy,  the  mistake  is  in  applying  a  standard 
which  is  out  of  place.  In  those  days  the  natural  and, 
indeed,  the  only  outlet  of  the  kind  for  benefiting  the 
poor  was  almsgiving ;  and  our  Lord's  main  object 
was  to  strengthen  the  motive,  which  was  in  itself  a 
thoroughly  right   one.     It  would   have   been   in   vain   to 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  91 

anticipate  methods  which  God  has  evidently  intended 
to  be  the  result  of  long  experience.  The  argument 
from  analogy  comes  in  here  with  great  force.  God 
might  have  removed  many  forms  of  human  ill  with  a 
word ;  but  as  it  is,  He  has  been  pleased  to  let  improved 
methods,  and  the  wisdom  to  use  them,  grow  gradu- 
ally and  grow  together.  The  advance  which  mankind 
slowly  makes  is  a  solid  advance,  and  an  advance  not 
here  and  there,  but  all  along  the  line. 

We  have  seen  that  our  Lord  was  not  careful  to  guard 
against  misunderstandings.  It  has  been  a  salutary 
exercise  for  His  followers  to  find  out  what  was  the 
true  sense  of  His  sayings  for  themselves. 

§  35.  (4)  The  Messiah.  —  We  are  not  concerned  here 
with  the  very  remarkable  historical  evolution  of  the 
claim  of  our  Lord  to  be  the  Messiah,  which  will  come 
before  us  in  connexion  with  the  narrative  of  His  life. 
At  present  we  have  to  do  only  with  His  teaching  on 
the  subject,  and  that  mainly  with  reference  to  the 
deeply  significant  names  by  which  His  claim  was 
conveyed. 

(i.)  The  Christ.  —  We  need  not  delay  over  the  title 
'  Messiah,'  '  Christ,'  '  Anointed,'  which  is  simply  that 
of  the  current  Jewish  expectation.  It  is  repeatedly 
applied  to  our  Lord  by  others,  and  on  three  occasions, 
at  least,  expressly  accepted  by  Himself  (Jn  4^®,  Mt  16^^, 
Mk  i4*'^-^^||,  cf.  Jn  11^;  but  only  once  does  our  Lord 
use  the  term  of  Himself  (Jn  17^  'It^o-ow  X/ato-rov),  and 
that  in  a  passage  where  we  cannot  be  sure  that  the 
wording  is  not  that  of  the  evangelist.  In  like  manner 
the     title     '  Elect '     (eKXeXey/AcVos,     Lk    9^  ;     e/fAe/cTo?,     Lk 


i^ 


92  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

23^),  which  is  also  current  (cf.  Enoch   40'),   is   applied 
to  our  Lord,  but  not  by  Himself. 

(ii.)  Son  of  David.  —  Much  the  same  may  be  said 
of  another  title  which  belongs  to  a  prominent  side  of 
the  expectation.  '  Son  of  David '  occurs  several  times 
(on  the  lips  of  the  crowd  at  and  before  the  triumphal 
entry,  of  the  Syrophoenician  woman,  of  Bartimaeus, 
sX  of  the  Pharisees),  but  Jesus  Himself  does  not  use  it, 
and    rather   propounds  a  difficulty  in  regard   to   it   (Mk 

12^11). 

(iii.)  Son  of  Man.  —  The  really  characteristic  title 
which  occurs  some  eighty  times  in  the  Gospels,  and  is 
without  doubt  the  one  which  Jesus  chose  to  express 
His  own  view  of  His  office,  is  '  the  Son  of  Man.' 
Whereas  the  other  titles  are  used  by  others  of  Him, 
this  is  used  only  by  Him  and  of  Himself.  What  He 
desired  to  convey  by  this  is  a  question  at  once  of  no 
little  difficulty  and  of  great  importance  ('  Die  Frage 
gehort  zu  den  verwickeltsten  ja  verfahrensten  der 
ganzen  neutest.  Theologie,'  Holtzmann). 

The  starting-point  for  this,  as  well  as  for  the  idea  of 
the  kingdom,  is,  we  may  be  sure,  Dn  7'^  The  '  Son 
of  Man '  in  that  passage,  as  originally  written,  stood 
for  Israel.  The  four  world-empires  are  represented 
I  by  beasts,  the  dominion  that  falls  to  Israel  is  that  of  a 
1  man.  But  in  this  as  in  other  respects  the  passage  was 
interpreted  Messianically.  In  the  Similitudes  of  the 
Book  of  Enoch  (chs.  37-70)  the  Son  of  Man  takes  a 
prominent  place.  He  is  a  person,  and  a  superhuman 
person.  It  is  He  who  holds  the  great  judgment  to 
which  the  Apocalyptic  writings  look  forward.  The 
attributes  ascribed  to  Him  are  all  more  or  less  directly 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  93 

connected  with  this  judgment,  which  is  at  once  to 
vindicate  the  righteous,  and  finally  to  put  down  the 
wicked.  The  date  of  this  portion  of  the  Book  of  Enoch 
has  been  much  debated,  but  opinion  at  the  present  time 
is  still  more  preponderantly  in  favour  of  the  view  that 
it  is  pre-Christian  (between  B.C.  94-64,  Charles,  Enoch, 
p.  29f.).  The  language  of  the  Gospels  requires  that  the 
title  as  applied  to  a  person  and  to  the  Messiah  should 
be  not  entirely  new.  It  also  requires  that  it  should  be 
not  perfectly  understood  and  familiar  (Mt  16'^,  Jn  12^). 
It  is  probable  that  its  use  did  not  go  beyond  a  small 
circle,  the  particular  circle  to  which  the  Similitudes  of 
Enoch  belonged.  This,  however,  would  be  enough  to 
give  the  phrase  a  certain  currency,  and  to  make  it  at 
least  suggest  association  with  the  Messiah. 

It  is  associated  with  Him,  especially  in  His  char- 
acter as  Judge,  and  as  the  chief  actor  in  that  series  of 
events  which  marks  the  end  of  the  age,  and  the  reversal 
of  the  places  of  good  and  wicked.  This  sense  Jesus 
did  not  discard.  It  appears  unmistakably  in  a  number 
of  passages  (Mt  13^^  16-^  19^  24^^-  25^^^-  26^*  etc.). 
But  at  the  same  time  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
He  read  into  it  a  number  of  other  ideas,  new  and 
original,  just  as  He  read  them  into  the  conception  of 
the  Kingdom. 

What  is  most  distinctive  in  this  novel  element  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  ?  There  is  an  increasing  tendency 
among  scholars  to  lay  stress  on  the  Aramaic  original 
of  the  phrase.  The  Aramaic  equivalent  is  said  to  mean 
and  to  be  the  only  way  which  they  had  of  express- 
ing 'Man'  (generically,  i.e.  'Mankind').  Hence  the 
attempt  has   been   made    to    interpret    the    phrase    im- 


94  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

personally,  and  to  get  rid  more  or  less  of  its  Messianic 
application  (see  Holtzmann,  NT  Th.  i.  256ff.).  It  is 
true  that  an  impersonal  sense  will  suit  such  a  passage 
as  Mk  2^  '  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man  .  .  . 
therefore  the  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath.' 
At  the  same  time  this  is  by  no  means  the  necessary 
sense.  And  Wellhausen,  who  is  one  of  those  who 
most  emphatically  maintain  the  equation  '  Son  of  Man  ' 
=  '  Man,'  yet  sees  that  the  expression  must  have  been 
used  by  our  Lord  to  designate  His  own  person  {Israel, 
u.  Jud.  Gesch?  ■^.  381).  Nor  can  this  conclusion  really 
be  avoided  by  such  an  expedient  as  Holtzmann's,  who 
calls  attention  to  the  comparative  rarity  of  the  title  in 
the  early  chapters  and  early  stages  of  the  history  {e.g. 
in  Mark  only  2'"-^),  and  would  explain  it  during  this 
period  impersonally,  and  only  after  St.  Peter's  con- 
fession personally.  Against  this  and  against  more 
sweeping  attempts  {e.g.  by  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority, 
p.  339)  to  get  rid  of  the  Messianic  signification  alto- 
gether, it  may  be  enough  to  point  out  that  if  reasonable 
critics  like  Holtzmann  allow,  and  a  narrative  such  as 
that  of  the  Temptation  seems  to  prove,  that  Jesus  from 
the  first  really  assumed  the  character  of  the  Messiah, 
and  if  our  oldest  authorities  with  one  consent  treat  the 
title  Son  of  Man  as  in  the  later  stages  Messianic,  it  is 
fair  to  presume  that  it  is  Messianic  also  in  the  earlier. 
If  the  Similitudes  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  are  pre- 
■  Christian,  this  conclusion  would  amount  almost  to 
certainty. 

It  is,  however,  fair  to  argue  from  the  natural  sense 
of  the  phrase  in  Aramaic,  that  by  His  use  of  it,  Jesus 
did   place   Himself   in   some   relation   to   humanity  as  a 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  95 

whole.  And  we  are  led  to  form  the  same  inference  by 
the  conspicuous  use  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew  in 
Ps  8*  '  What  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him  ? 
and  the  son  of  man  that  thou  visitest  him  ? '  Here 
the  parallelism  shows  that  '  son  of  man  '  =  '  man.'  We 
also  know  from  He  2^^"  that  the  psalm  was  at  a  very 
early  date  applied  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  at  a 
still  earlier  date  (the  Baptism)  we  have  the  neigh- 
bouring Ps  2'  applied  to  Him.  It  seems  to  follow,  or 
at  least  to  be  a  very  natural  presumption,  that  these 
two  psalms  early  became  an  object  of  close  study 
to  Jesus,  and  helped  to  give  outward  shape  to  His 
conceptions. 

Ps  8  seems  specially  adapted  to  fall  in  with  these, 
as  it  brings  out  with  equal  strength  the  two  elements 
which  we  know  to  have  entered  into  the  consciousness 
of  Jesus  —  the  combination  of  lowliness  with  loftiness, 
the  physical  weakness  of  man  as  contrasted  with  his 
sublime  calling  and  destiny.  We  can  see  here  the 
appropriateness  of  the  application  of  one  and  the  same 
title  to  Him  who,  on  the  one  hand,  '  had  not  where  to 
lay  his  head,'  and  who  must  needs  '  go  as  it  was  written 
of  him,'  and  who  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  looked  to  come 
again  *  with  power '  in  His  Kingdom. 

We  do  not  like  to  use  such  very  modern  phraseology 
as  the  *  ideal  of  humanity,'  '  the  representative  of  the 
human  race ' ;  and  yet  it  would  seem  that  Jesus  did 
deliberately  connect  with  His  own  person  such  ideas 
as  these :  He  fused  them  as  it  were  into  the  central 
idea  of  Messiahship,  and  we  can  see  how  the  Jewish 
conception  of  the  Messiah  was  enlarged  and  enriched 
by  them.     If  the   Messiah   comes   out  in  the   claim  to 


96  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

forgive  sins,  it  is  the  Son  of  Man  whose  mission  it  was 
'to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost'  (Lk  19^°), 
'  not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to  minister,  and  to  give 
his  Ufe  a  ransom  for  many'  (Mk  10^* ||). 

Here  we  have  another  connexion  in  which  the  name 
is  frequently  used.  The  prophecies  of  the  Resurrection 
and  of  the  Second  Coming  are  closely  associated  with 
the  fatal  end  of  the  First :  '  The  Son  of  Man  must 
suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected  by  the  elders,  and 
the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and 
after  three  days  rise  again  '  (Mk  8^^  etc.).  If  we  ask 
for  the  OT  original  of  this  '  Saviour  through  suffering,' 
no  doubt  it  is  the  Second  Part  of  Isaiah,  and  especially 
Is  53.  Still,  it  would  be  rather  too  much  to  describe 
this  idea  as  embodied  in  the  title  '  Son  of  Man.'  It  is 
embodied  in  the  character  of  the  Son  of  Man  as  con- 
ceived by  Jesus,  but  not  exactly  in  the  name.  The 
name  which  expressed  it  was  the  '  Servant  of  Jehovah ' 
(Trals  KvpLov) ;  and  this  name  was  undoubtedly  applied 
to  Christ  by  the  Church  as  soon  as  it  began  to  reflect 
upon  His  life  and  mission  (cf.  Ac  3^^-  ^  4^^-  ^,  Mt  12^^), 
but  we  have  no  evidence  that  Jesus  used  it  of  Himself. 
One  reason  for  the  choice  of  the  name  '  Son  of  Man ' 
probably  was  that  it  admitted  and  favoured  these 
associations,  even   if   it   did   not   directly  suggest   them. 

This  comprehensive  and  deeply  significant  title 
touched  at  the  one  end  the  Messianic  and  eschato- 
logical  expectation  through  the  turn  which  had  been 
given  to  it  in  one  section  of  Judaism  (the  Book  of 
Enoch).  At  the  other  and  opposite  end  it  touched  the 
idea  of  the  Siiffering  Servant.  But  at  the  centre  it 
is  broadly  based  upon  an  infinite  sense  of  brotherhood 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  9; 

with  toiling  and  struggling  humanity,  which  He  who 
most  thoroughly  accepted  its  conditions  was  fittest  also 
to  save.  As  Son  of  God,  Jesus  looked  upwards  to  the 
Father ;  as  Son  of  Man,  He  looked  outwards  upon  His 
brethren,  the  sheep  who  had  no  shepherd. 

(iv.)  Son  of  God.  —  Only  once  in  the  Synoptics  (Mt 
27*^)  and  in  a  few  places  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  (Jn 
10^^  cf.  5^  9^  var.  kc.  11*)  is  it  hinted  that  Jesus 
directly  assumed  this  title.  It  is  repeatedly  given  to 
Him  by  others  —  by  the  Baptist  (Jn  i^),  by  Nathanael 
(Jn  i^^),  by  Satan  hypothetical ly  (Mt  4^),  as  also  by  the 
crowd  (Mt  27*°),  by  the  possessed  (Mk  3"||),  by  the 
disciples  (Mt  14^),  by  the  centurion  (Mk  15^^  =  Mt  27^), 
and  by  evangelists  (Mk  i^  v. I.  Jn  3^*  20^^). 

At  the  same  time  it  is  abundantly  clear  that  the  title 
was  really  assumed  from  the  indirect  mode  in  which 
Jesus  constantly  speaks  of  God  as  'My  Father.'  This 
is  very  frequent  in  the  Synoptics  as  well  as  in  St.  John 
(Mt  7^  10^  11^  15^  16^^  etc.).  And  although,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  consciousness  which  finds  expression  in 
this  phrase  becomes  the  basis  of  an  extended  doctrine 
of  the  Divine  Fatherhood  ('  the  Father,'  '  our  Father,' 
*  thy  Father,'  'your  Father'),  there  is  nevertheless  a 
distinct  interval  between  the  sense  in  which  God  can 
be  claimed  as  Father  by  men,  even  the  innermost  circle 
of  the  disciples,  and  that  in  which  He  is  Father  to  the 
Son.  In  this  respect  the  passage  Mt  ii^  =  Lk  10^^  is 
quite  explicit  (cf.  also  the  graduated  scale  of  being  in 
Mk  13^^  =  Mt  24^).  Although  this  passage  stands  out 
somewhat  conspicuously  in  the  Synoptics,  the  context  in 
which  it  occurs  is  so  original  and  so  beyond  the  reach 
of  invention,  while  it  supplies  so  marvellously  the  key 
7 


98  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

to  that  which  distinguishes  the  history  of  Jesus  from 
other  histories,  that  doubt  cannot  reasonably  be  cast 
upon  it.  It  is  confirmed  by  the  sense  in  which  the 
title  '  Son  of  God '  is  taken  by  the  Jews  —  not  merely 
by  the  populace  but  by  the  learned  (Mt  27""*^,  cf. 
Mk  15^^-  ^-,  n  19^.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
confirms  sufficiently  the  substantial  accuracy  of  like 
passages  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  (e.g.  lo**-  ^).  We  are 
thus  prepared  for  the  unanimity  with  which  the  Church 
at  the  earliest  date  fixed  upon  this  title  to  convey  its 
sense  of  the  uniqueness  of  Christ's  nature  (Ac  9^,  Ro 
I^  Gal  22«,  Eph  4^^  He  4"  etc.,  i  Jn  4"  etc.,  Rev  2'% 
This  aspect  of  the  question  will  come  before  us  more 
fully  later.  We  content  ourselves  for  the  present 
with  observing  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  reserved 
and  reticent  as  it  is,  presupposes  as  its  background 
this  wholly  exceptional  relation  of  '  the  Son '  to  '  the 
Father.'  From  that  as  centre  radiate  a  number  of 
other  relationships  to  His  immediate  disciples,  to  the 
Church  of  which  they  formed  the  nucleus,  and  to  man- 
kind. The  Sonship  of  Jesus  is  intimately  connected 
\  with  His  work  as  Messiah  (Titius,  p.  116).  It  is  in 
this  character  that  '  all  things  are  delivered '  to  Him 
(Mt  11"  II),  in  this  character  that  He  is  enabled  to  give 
to  the  world  a  revelation  of  the  Father  (tl>.),  in  this 
character  that  He  carries  out  His  work  of  redemption 
even  to  the  death  (Mk  i4^||). 

§  36.  (5)  The  Paraclete  and  the  Tri-unity  of  God.  —  In 
the  earliest  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  we  find  that  the  Son  of 
God  is  placed  side  by  side  with  the  Father,  and  is  asso- 
ciated with  Him  as  the  ground  of  the   Church's  being, 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  99 

the  source  of  spiritual  grace,  and  as  co-operating  with 
Him  in  the  providential  ordering  of  events  (i  Th  i^, 
2  Th  i\  I  Th  3"^).  It  is  difficult  to  describe  the 
effect  of  the  language  used  in  any  other  terms  than 
as  attributing  to  the  Son  a  coequal  Godhead  with  the 
Father.  And  it  is  remarkable  that  St.  Paul  does  this, 
within  some  twenty-two  years  of  the  Ascension,  not 
as  though  he  were  laying  down  anything  new,  but 
as  something  which  might  be  assumed  as  part  of  the 
common  body  of  Christian  doctrine. 

We  observe  also  that  throughout  the  earliest  group 
of  Epistles  there  are  frequent  references  to  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  one  great  force  which  lies 
behind  at  once  the  missionary  activity  and  the  common 
life  of  the  Church  of  the  apostolic  age  (esp.  i  Co  12-14, 
but  cf.  I  Th  i^*'-  4*  5^^  etc.).  This,  too,  it  is  assumed 
that  all  Christians  would  understand. 

How  are  we  to  account  for  the  prevalence  of  such 
teaching  at  so  early  a  date,  and  in  a  region  so  far 
removed  from  the  centre  of  Christianity?  It  would 
be  natural  if  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself  in  His 
intercourse  with  His  disciples  had  prepared  them  to 
expect  a  great  activity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  if  He 
had  hinted  at  relations  in  the  Godhead  which  made 
it  threefold  rather  than  a  simple  monad.  Apart  from 
such  hints,  the  common  belief  of  the  Church  respecting 
Christ  Himself  and  the  Holy  Spirit  seems  very  difficult 
to  understand.  Certain  previous  tendencies  in  Jewish 
thought  might  lead  up  some  way  towards  it,  but  they 
would  leave  a  wide  gap  unspanned. 

When,  therefore,  we  find  that  one  Gospel  ascribes 
to  our  Lord  rather  full  and  detailed  teaching  respecting 


lOO         TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

the  Paraclete,  which  is  explained  to  be  another  name 
for  the  Holy  Spirit  (Jn  14^^  ^  15^,  when  there  is  held 
out  a  clear  hope  and  promise  of  a  new  Divine  influence 
to  take  the  place  of  that  which  is  being  withdrawn, 
and  when  in  another  Gospel  we  are  also  told  of  the 
institution  *  of  a  rite  associated  with  a  new  revelation 
of  God  under  a  threefold  Name,  that  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit  (Mt  28"),  these  phenomena  are  just 
what  we  are  prepared  for,  and  just  such  as  we  should 
have  had  to  assume  even  if  we  had  had  no  definite 
record  of  them.  We  may,  then,  regard  them  as 
having  received  —  whatever  the  antecedent  claims  of 
the  documents  in  which  they  are  found  —  a  very  con- 
siderable degree  of  critical  verification.  The  single 
verse  2  Cor  13"  seems  to  require  something  very  like 
what  we  find  in  St,  Matthew  and  St.  John. 

Literature.  —  Much  material  of  value  will  be  found  in  the 
works  on  the  Biblical  Theology  of  NT  by  Weiss,  Beyschlag,  and 
esp.  H.  J.  Holtzmann  (1897).  Reference  may  also  be  made  to 
Bovon,  Theol.  du  NT,  Lausanne,  1897.  The  most  considerable 
recent  work  on  the  Teaching  of  Jesus  as  a  whole  is  Wendt's 
Lehre  Jesu,  Gottingen,  1 890  (Eng.  tr.,  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  N.Y. 
1892).  Bruce,  The  Kingdom  of  God  (1890  and  later)  embraces  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  only.  In  the  last  few  years  a  number  of  mono- 
graphs have  appeared  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom  and 
points  connected  with  it  —  all,  it  may  be  said,  bringing  out  some 
real  aspect  in  the  doctrine,  though  in  the  writer's  opinion  too 
often  at  the  expense  of  other  aspects.  The  series  began  with 
two  prize  essays,  Die  Lehre  vom  Reiche  Gottes,  by  Issel  and 
SchmoUer  (both  Leiden,  1891),  and  includes  treatises  with  similar 
titles  by  Schnedermann  (Leipzig,  1893,  1895,  ^896),  J.  Weiss 
(Gottingen,  1892),  Lutgert  (Giitersloh,  1895),  Titius  (Freiburg 
i.   B.   u.   Leipzig,    1895),   Krop    (Paris,    1897);    ^'^o   Bousset,   Jesu 

*  Not,  of  course,  the  first  institution,  but  its  confirmation  as  a  rite 
and  its  first  association  with  the  triple  formula. 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  10 1 

Predigt  in  ihrem  Gegensatz  zum  Judentum  (Goltingen,  1892); 
Paul,  Die  Vorstellungen  vom  Messias  u.  vom  Gottesreich  (Bonn, 
1895);  Lietzmann,  Der  Menschensohn  (Leipzig,  1896);  J.  Weiss, 
Die  Nachfolge  Christi  (Gottingen,  1895);  Grass,  Das  Verhalten  zu 
Jesus  (Leipzig,  1S95);  Ehrhardt,  Der  Grundcharakter  d.  Ethik 
Jesu  (Freiburg  i.  B.  u.  Leipzig,  1895);  Wiesen,  Die  Siellung  Jesu 
zum  irdischen  Gut  (Giitersloh,  1895). 


The  Miracles  of  Jesus. 

§  37.  There  has  been  a  certain  tendency  of  late  to 
recede  from  the  extreme  position  in  the  denial  of 
Miracles.  Harnack,  for  instance,  writes  in  reference 
to  the  Gospel  history  as  follows :  '  Much  that  was 
formerly  rejected  has  been  re-established  on  a  close 
investigation,  and  in  the  light  of  comprehensive  ex- 
perience. Who  in  these  days,  for  example,  could 
make  such  short  work  of  the  miraculous  cures  in 
the  Gospels  as  was  the  custom  of  scholars  formerly  ? ' 
{Christianity  and  History,  p.  63,  Eng.  tr.). 

§  38.  (i.)  Different  Classes  of  Miracles.  —  Partly  this 
change  of  attitude  is  due  to  the  higher  estimate  which 
would  now  be  put  on  the  value  of  the  evangelical 
sources  generally,  as  to  which  something  will  be  said 
below.  Partly  it  would  be  due  to  a  change  of  view  in 
regard  to  the  supernatural,  which  is  no  longer  placed 
in  direct  antagonism  to  the  natural,  but  which  is  more 
reasonably  explained  as  resulting  from  the  operation 
of  a  higher  cause  in  nature.  And  partly  also  it  would 
be  due  to  the  recognition  of  wider  possibilities  in 
nature,  '  more  things  in  heaven  and  earth '  than  were 
dreamt  of  in  the  narrow  philosophy  of  the  Aiifklarung. 


T02        TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

(a)  In  particular,  it  may  be  said  that  medical  science 
would  have  no  difficulty  in  admitting  a  large  class  of 
miracles  of  healing.  All  those  which  have  to  do  with 
what  would  now  be  called  '  nervous  disorders,'  all 
those  in  which  there  was  a  direct  action  of  the  mind 
upon  the  body,  would  fall  into  place  readily  enough. 
Given  a  personality  like  that  of  Jesus,  the  effect  which 
it  would  have  upon  disorders  of  this  character  would 
be  strictly  analogous  to  that  which  modern  medicine 
would  seek  to  produce.  The  peculiar  combination  of 
commanding  authority  with  extreme  gentleness  and 
sympathy  would  be  a  healing  force  of  which  the  value 
could  not  easily  be  exaggerated. 

A  question  would  indeed  still  be  left  as  to  the  treat- 
ment of  the  cases  of  what  was  called  '  demoniacal 
possession.'  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Jesus  Himself 
shared,  broadly  speaking,  the  views  of  His  contem- 
poraries in  regard  to  these  cases :  His  methods  of 
healing  went  upon  the  assumption  that  they  were 
fundamentally  what  every  one,  including  the  patients 
themselves,  supposed  them  to  be.  We  can  well  believe 
that  this  was  a  necessary  assumption  in  order  to  allow 
the  healing  influences  to  operate.  We  must  remember 
that  all  the  ideas  of  the  patient  would  be  adjusted  to 
the  current  belief,  and  it  would  be  only  through  them 
that  the  words  and  acts  of  Christ  could  take  effect. 
In  the  accounts  of  such  miracles  we  see  that  there  was 
a  mutual  intelligence  between  Healer  and  patient  from 
the  first  (Mk  i^'H  ^||  5«||).  It  was  by  means  of  this 
mutual  intelligence  that  the  word  of  command  struck 
■home. 

We  should  be   prepared,  then,  to  say  that  this   class 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  I03 

of  miracles  implied  accommodation  to  the  ideas  of  the 
time.  But  when  we  speak  of  '  accommodation '  on 
the  part  of  our  Lord,  we  do  not  mean  a  merely 
politic  assumption  of  a  particular  belief  for  a  particular 
purpose.  We  mean  that  the  assumption  was  part  of 
the  outfit  of  His  incarnate  Manhood.  There  was  a 
certain  circle  of  ideas  which  Jesus  accepted  in  becoming 
Man  in  the  same  way  in  which  He  accepted  a  particular 
language  with  its  grammar  and  vocabulary. 

It  would  have  been  wholly  out  of  keeping  with  the 
general  character  of  His  Ministry  if  Jesus  had  attacked 
this  form  of  disease  in  any  other  way  than  through  the 
belief  in  regard  to  it  which  at  that  time  was  universal. 
The  scientific  description  of  it  has  doubtless  greatly 
changed.  But  it  is  still  a  question  which  is  probably  by 
no  means  so  clear,  whether,  allowing  for  its  temporary 
and  local  character,  the  language  then  used  did  not 
contain  an  important  element  of  truth.  The  physical 
and  moral  spheres  are  perhaps  more  intimately  con- 
nected than  we  suppose.  And  the  unbridled  wickedness 
rife  in  those  days  may  have  had  physical  effects,  which 
were  not  unfitly  described  as  the  work  of  'demons.' 
The  subject  is  one  which  it  is  probable  has  not  yet  been 
fully  explored. 

()8)  There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  one  large  class  of 
diseases  in  regard  to  which  the  healing  force  exerted 
by  the  presence  and  the  word  of  Jesus  has  a  certain 
amount  of  analogy  in  the  facts  recognized  by  modern 
medicine.  We  must  not,  however,  treat  that  analogy 
as  going  farther  than  it  does.  It  does  not  hold  good 
equally  for  all  the  forms  of  disease  which  are  described 
as   having   been   healed.      Wherever    the   body  is   subject 


104         TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

to  the  action  of  the  mind,  there  we  can  give  an  account 
of  the  miracle  which  is  to  some  extent — to  a  large  ex- 
tent—  rational  and  intelligible.  But  in  cases  in  which 
the  miracle  involves  a  purely  physical  process  it  will 
not  be  possible  to  explain  it  in  the  same  way. 

This  other  class  of  miracles  will  fall  rather  under  the 
same  head  as  those  which  were  wrought,  not  upon  man, 
but  upon  nature.  In  regard  to  these  miracles,  the 
world  is  probably  not  much  nearer  to  a  reasoned  ac- 
count than  it  was.  It  must  always  be  remembered  that 
the  narratives  which  have  come  down  to  us  are  the 
work  of  those  who  expected  that  Divine  action  would 
(as  we  should  say)  run  counter  to  natural  laws  and  not 
be  in  harmony  with  them,  and  that  the  more  Divine  it 
was  the  more  directly  it  would  run  counter  to  them. 
We  may  be  sure  that  if  the  miracles  of  the  first  century 
'  c  had  been  wrought  before  trained  spectators  of  the  nine- 
teenth, the  version  of  them  would  be  quite  different. 
/  But  to  suppose  this  is  to  suppose  what  is  impossible, 
(  because  all  God's  dealings  with  men  are  adapted  to  the 
\  age  to  which  they  belong,  and  cannot  be  transferred  to 
another  age.  If  God  intended  to  manifest  Himself 
specially  to  the  nineteenth  century,  we  should  expect 
Him  to  do  so  by  other  means.  We  are  then  compelled 
to  take  the  accounts  as  they  have  come  down  to  us. 
And  we  are  aware  beforehand  that  any  attempt  to 
translate  them  into  our  own  habits  of  thought  must  be 
one  of  extreme  difficulty,  if  not  doomed  to  failure. 

§  39.  (ii.)  Critical  Expedients  for  eliminating  Miracle. 
—  In  view  of  the  difficulty  of  giving  a  rational  {i.e.  a 
twentieth   century)  version   of  miracle,  it   is   not   surpris- 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  105 

ing  that  recourse  should  be  had  to  critical  expedients 
for  explaining  away  Miracle  altogether ;  in  other  words, 
to  account  for  the  narratives  of  miracles  without  assum- 
ing that  objective  facts  corresponding  to  them  really 
occurred.  The  expedients  most  in  favour  are :  (a) 
imitation  of  similar  stories  in  OTj  (/8)  exaggeration  of 
natural  occurrences ;  (y)  translation  of  what  was  origin- 
ally parable  into  external  fact.  These  are  causes  which 
have  about  them  nothing  violent  or  incredible,  and  we 
may  believe  that  they  were  to  some  extent  really  at 
work.  The  question  to  what  extent,  will  depend  mainly 
upon  the  nature  of  the  evidence  for  miracles  and  the 
length  of  time  interposed  between  the  evidence  and  the 
events.  This  will  be  the  next  subject  to  come  before 
us.  We  may,  however,  anticipate  so  far  as  to  say  that 
whatever  degree  of  verisimilitude  belongs  to  the  causes 
suggested  in  themselves,  they  do  not  appear  to  be 
adequate,  either  separately  or  in  combination,  to  ac- 
count for  the  whole  or  any  large  part  of  the  narratives 
as  we  have  them.  And  there  is  the  further  considera- 
tion, on  which  more  will  also  be  said  presently,  that 
something  of  the  nature  of  miracle,  something  which 
was  understood  as  miracle,  and  that  on  no  insignificant 
scale,  must  be  assumed  to  account  for  the  estimate  cer- 
tainly formed  by  the  whole  first  generation  of  Christians 
of  the  Person  of  Christ. 

§  40.  (iii.)  The  Evidence  for  the  Gospel  Miracles  in 
general.  —  Coming  to  the  question  as  to  the  evidence  for 
the  Miracles  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  there  are  three 
main  observations  to  be  made :  (a)  that  the  evidence 
for    all    these    miracles,    generally    speaking,    is    strong; 


I06  TEACHING   AND   MIRACLES 

(y8)  that  the  evidence  for  all  the  different  classes  of  miracles 
is  equally  strong;  (y)  that  although  for  the  best  attested 
miracles  in  each  class  the  evidence  is  equal,  there  is  a 
difference  between  particular  miracles  in  each  class ;  some 
are  better  attested  than  others. 

(a)  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  what  has  been  already 
said  (p.  4,  sup?^  about  the  general  character  of  the  Gospel 
History.  The  critical  student  must  constantly  have  in 
mind  the  question  to  what  state  of  things  the  different 
phases  of  that  history  as  it  has  come  down  to  us  cor- 
respond. Does  it  reflect  conditions  as  they  existed  after 
A.D.  70  or  before?  And  if  before,  how  far  does  it  re- 
flect the  later  half  of  that  period,  and  how  far  the 
earlier?  How  far  does  it  coincide  with  a  section  of 
Christian  thought  and  Christian  life  {e.g^  taken  at  the 
height  of  the  activity  of  St.  Paul ;  and  how  far  does  it 
certainly  point  to  an  earlier  stage  than  this  ?  In  other 
words,  how  much  of  the  description  contained  in  the  Gos- 
pels belongs  to  the  period  of  consequences,  and  how  much 
to  the  period  of  causes? 

Every  attempt  to  treat  of  the  life  of  our  Lord  should 
contribute  its  quota  to  the  answer  to  these  questions. 
And  it  is  becoming  more  and  more  possible  to  do  this, 
not  merely  in  a  spirit  of  superficial  apologetics,  but 
with  a  deep  sense  of  responsibility  to  the  truth  of  his- 
tory. And  the  writer  of  this  article  strongly  believes 
that  the  tendency  of  the  researches  of  recent  years  has 
been  to  enhance  and  not  to  diminish  the  estimate  of  the 
historical  value  of  the  Gospels. 

(^)  This  applies  to  the  Gospel  records  as  a  whole,  in 
which  miracles  are  included.  It  is  natural  next  to  ask, 
What    is     the    nature    of    the    particular    evidence     for 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  10/ 

Miracles?  How  is  it  distributed?  Does  the  distribution 
correspond  to  the  distinction  which  we  have  drawn  between 
the  easier  and  the  more  difificult  Miracles?  If  it  did,  we 
might  suppose  that  the  former  class  had  better  claims  to 
credence  than  the  latter. 

But  an  examination  of  the  documents  shows  that 
this  is  not  the  case.  Without  committing  ourselves  to 
all  the  niceties  of  the  Synoptic  problem,  there  are  at 
any  rate  broad  grounds  for  distinguishing  between  the 
matter  that  is  found  in  all  the  three  Synoptics,  in  the  First 
and  Third,  and  in  one  only  of  the  Three.  Whether 
the  ultimate  groundwork  is  written  or  oral,  the  three- 
fold matter  represents  that  groundwork,  and  is  there- 
fore, if  not  necessarily  the  oldest,  at  least  the  most 
broadly  based  and  authoritative.  There  is  reason  to 
think  that  the  double  matter  is  also  very  ancient.  It 
consists  largely  of  discourse,  but  some  few  narratives 
seem  to  belong  to  it.  The  peculiar  sections  of  the  dif- 
ferent Gospels  vary  considerably  in  their  character,  and 
it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  they  would  have  the  least 
antecedent  presumption  in  their  favour.  Some  confirma- 
tory evidence  would  be  needed  for  facts  which  rested  upon 
their  testimony  alone. 

Now,  if  it  had  happened  that  the  Nature-Miracles 
had  been  confined  to  sections  of  this  last  kind,  while 
the  Miracles  of  Healing  —  and  especially  the  Healing  of 
nervous  diseases  —  had  entered  largely  into  the  Double 
and  Triple  Synopsis ;  or  —  inasmuch  as  discourse  more 
often  bears  the  stamp  of  unmistakable  originality  than 
narrative  —  if  the  miracles  of  one  class  had  appeared 
only  in  the  form  of  narrative,  while  the  allusions  in  dis- 
course were  wholly  to  miracles  of   the   other,  then  the 


I08  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

inference  would  have  lain  near  at  hand  that  there  was  a 
graduated  scale  in  the  evidence  corresponding  to  a  like 
graduated  scale  in  the  antecedent  probability  of  the 
miracle. 

But  this  is  not  the  case.  Miracles  of  all  the  different 
kinds  occur  in  all  the  documents  or  sources.  The 
Triple  Synopsis  contains  not  only  the  healing  of  de- 
moniacs and  paralytics,  but  the  healing  of  the  issue  of 
blood  (Mk  5^11),  the  raising  of  Jairus'  daughter  (/<^.^||), 
the  stilling  of  the  storm  {ib.  4^'|I)j  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand  {ib.  6'^||).  This  last  miracle  is  found  not  only 
in  all  three  Synoptists,  but  also  in  Jn  6*^-.  And  there 
is  this  further  point  about  it,  that  if  we  regard  the 
miracles  generally  as  a  gradual  accretion  of  myth  and 
not  based  upon  fact,  we  should  undoubtedly  assume 
that  the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand  (Mk  8^  Mt  15'-) 
was  a  mere  duplicate  of  it.  But  it  is  probable  that 
this  story  also  belonged  to  the  fundamental  source,  in 
spite  of  its  omission  by  Luke.  In  that  case  both  the 
feedings  of  a  multitude  would  have  had  a  place  in  the 
oldest  of  all  our  authorities,  and  the  first  growth  in 
the  tradition  would  have  to  be  pushed  back  a  step  farther 
still.  We  should  thus  have  a  nature-miracle  not  only 
embodied  in  our  oldest  source,  but  at  its  first  appear- 
ance in  that  source  already  pointing  back  some  way 
behind  it. 
/  (y)  It  thus  appears  that  the  evidence,  externally 
*  >►  I  considered,  is  equally  good  for  all  classes  of  miracles. 
It  is  not,  as  we  might  expect,  that  the  evidence  for  the 
easier  miracles  is  better  than  that  for  the  more  difficult, 
leaving  us  free  to  accept  the  one  and  reject  the  others. 
We  cannot  do  this,  because  the  best  testimony  we   have 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  109 

embraces  alike  those  miracles  which  imply  a  greater 
deviation  from  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  and  those 
in  which  the  deviation  is  less. 

It  does  not,  however,  follow  that  within  the  different 
classes  of  miracles  the  evidence  for  particular  miracles 
is  equal.  When  Prof.  Goldwin  Smith  insists  that  all 
the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Gospels  stand  or  fall  to- 
gether, he  is  going  in  the  teeth,  not  so  much  of  anything 
peculiar  to  the  study  of  the  Gospels,  but  of  the  historical 
method  generally.  And  the  examples  which  he  gives 
are  unfortunate.  '  We  cannot  pick  and  choose.  The 
evidence  upon  which  the  miraculous  darkness  and  the 
apparition  of  the  dead  rest  is  the  same  as  that  upon 
which  all  the  other  miracles  rest,  and  must  be  accepted 
or  rejected  in  all  the  cases  alike'  (^Guesses  at  the  Riddle 
of  Existence,  p.  160).  No  critical  student  needs  to  be 
told  that  the  evidence  for  the  apparitions  of  the  dead 
(Mt  27^^)  belongs  just  to  that  stratum  which  carries 
with  it  the  least  weight.  The  authority  for  the  darkness 
is  much  higher,  but  its  miraculous  character  need  not 
be  magnified.  Any  unusual  darkening  of  the  sky  would 
naturally  strike  the  imagination  of  the  disciples  ;  and 
it  might  be  not  contrary  to  nature  and  yet  also  not 
accidental. 

§  41 .  (iv.)  The  Quality  of  the  Evidence.  —  So  far  we 
have  spoken  of  the  external  character  of  the  evidence. 
It  is  speaking  within  the  mark  to  say  that  a  large  part 
of  the  evidence  for  the  Gospel  miracles,  including  some 
of  those  that  are  most  miraculous,  is  separated  from 
the  facts  by  an  interval  of  not  more  than  thirty  years. 
We   may  be   pretty  sure  that  before  that  date,  and   even 


no  TEACHING   AND   MIRACLES 

much   before  it,   stories   of  miracles   like   those   recorded 

in    the   Gospels   circulated    freely   among   Christians,    and 

were    a   common  subject   of  teaching    by    catechists    and 

others.      We    now    proceed    to   ask,   What   is   the   quality 

of  the   narratives   in   which   these   stories   occur  ?      What 

features   are  there  in  the  stories  themselves  which  throw 

light   upon  their  historical  value  ? 

i        (a)  We  are  met  at  the  outset  by  the  Temptation.     If 

/    there   is   anything   certain   in  history,  it  is  that  the  story 

of  the  Temptation  has  a  real  foundation  in  fact,  for  the 

simple   reason  that    without    such   a    foundation   it   would 

X       have  occurred   to    no  one  to  invent  it.      It  suits  exactly 

and  wonderfully  the  character  of  Jesus    as  we    can    now 

see   it,  but   not   as  it  was   seen  at   the  time.     Men  were 

trying  to  apprehend  that  character  ;    they  had  a  glimpse 

I    here  and  a   glimpse   there;    but    they  cannot    have    had 

more    than    dim    and  vague    surmises  as  to  what  it   was 

as    a  whole.      But    whoever    first   told    the    story  of  the 

(     Temptation    saw    it    as    a   whole.      We     have    therefore 

;     already  drawn    the    inference    that   it   was    first    told   by 

;     none  other  than  Jesus  Himself.      And  by  that  inference 

we  stand.     There  is  nothing  in  the  Gospels  that  is  more 

authentic. 

But  the  story  of  the  Temptation  presupposes  the 
possession  of  supernatural  powers.  It  all  turns  on  the 
question  how  those  powers  are  to  be  exercised.  It  not 
only  impUes  the  possession  of  power  to  work  such 
miracles  as  were  actually  worked,  but  others  even  more 
remarkable  from  the  point  of  view  of  crude  interference 
with  the  order  of  nature.  The  story  of  the  Temptation 
implies  that  Jesus  cotild  have  worked  such  miracles 
if    He     had    willed    to    do    so;    and    the    reason    why 


THE   MIRACLES   OF  JESUS  III 

He   did   not  work  them  was   only   because    He   did    not 
will. 

The  keynote  which  is  struck  by  the  Temptation  is 
sustained  all  through  the  sequel  of  the  history.  We 
can  see  that  the  Life  of  Jesus  was  what  it  was  by  an 
act  of  deliberate  denunciation.  When  He  says,  as  the 
end  draws  near,  '  Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  beseech 
my  Father,  and  he  shall  even  now  send  me  more  than 
twelve  legions  of  angels  ?'  (Mt  26^^),  the  lesson  holds 
good,  not  for  that  moment  alone,  but  for  all  that  has 
preceded  it.  The  Public  Ministry  of  Jesus  wears  the 
aspect  it  does,  not  because  of  limitations  imposed  from 
\    without,  but  of  limitations  imposed  from  within. 

Here  lies  the  paradox  of  the  Miracles  of  Christ.  He 
seems  at  once  to  do  them,  and  so  to  guard  against  a 
possible  misuse  that  it  is  as  if  He  had  not  done  them. 
The  common  idea  of  miracles  was  as  a  manifestation 
of  Divine  power.  Jesus  gave  the  manifestation,  and 
yet  He  seemed  so  to  check  it  from  producing  its  natural 
effect  that  it  is  as  though  it  did  not  serve  its  purpose. 
It  really  serves  His  purpose,  but  not  the  purpose 
which  the  world  both  then  and  since  has  ascribed  to 
Him. 

(/8)  We  have  seen  that  the  principles  laid  down  at 
the  Temptation  governed  the  whole  public  life  of  Jesus. 
He  steadily  refused  to  work  miracles  for  any  purely 
self- regarding  end.  If  the  fact  that  He  works  miracles  ^ 
at  all  is  a  sympathetic  adaptation  to  the  beliefs  and 
expectations  of  the  time,  those  beliefs  are  schooled  and 
criticized  while  they  are  adopted  (Mt  12^^  ||  i6^*-,  Jn  4^), 
the  element  of  mere  display,  the  element  of  self-asser- 
tion, even   of  self-preservation,  is  eliminated   from   them. 


112  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

They  are  studiously  restricted  to  the  purposes  of  the 
mission. 

Now  this  carefully  restricted  character  in  the  miracles 
of  Jesus  is  unique  in  history.  Among  all  the  multitude 
of  wonders  with  which  the  faith,  sometimes  super- 
stitious, but  more  often  simply  naive,  of  the  later 
Church  adorned  the  lives  of  the  saints,  there  is  nothing 
quite  like  it.  We  may  say  with  confidence  that  if  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  had  been  no  more  than  an  invention, 
they  would  not  have  been  what  they  are.  We  can  see 
in  the  evangelists  a  certain  dim  half-conscious  feeling 
of  the  self-imposed  limitations  in  the  use  of  the  super- 
natural by  Christ.  But  we  may  be  very  sure  that  they 
have  this  feeling,  because  the  limitations  were  inherent 
in  the  facts,  not  because  they  formed  part  from  the  first 
of  a  picture  which  they  were  constructing  a  priori. 

(y)  There  are  three  kinds  of  restriction  in  the  miracles 
of  our  Lord.  The  limitation  in  the  subject-matter  of 
the  miracles  is  one ;  the  limitation  in  the  conditions 
under  which  they  are  wrought  is  another  (Mt  13^  II 
15^^  26^.  and  the  limitation  in  the  manner  in  which  they 
are  set  before  the  world  is  a  third.  In  a  number  of 
cases,  after  a  miracle  has  been  performed,  the  recipient 
is  strictly  cautioned  to  maintain  silence  about  it  (Mk  i^*  II 
demoniacs,  i*^  ||  leper,  3^^  demoniacs,  cf.  Mt  12^®,  Mk  7^^ 
deaf  and  dumb,  8^^  blind).  This  hangs  together  with 
the  manifest  intention  of  Jesus  to  correct  not  only  the 
current  idea  of  miracles,  but  the  current  idea  of  thf 
Messiah  as  one  endowed  with  supernatural  power.  If 
He  was  so  endowed,  it  was  not  that  He  might  gather 
about  Him  crowds  and  establish  a  carnal  kingdom  such 
as  the  Jews    expected. 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  I13 

This,  too,  is  a  very  original  feature.  It  is  certainly 
not  one  that  the  popular  imagination  would  create, 
because  the  motive  to  create  it  was  wanting.  It  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  the  popular  imagination  would 
first  correct  itself  and  then  embody  the  correction  in  a 
fictitious  narrative.  Here  again  we  are  driven  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  narrative  truly  reflects  the  facts. 

(8)  In  yet  another  way  do  the  accounts  of  the  miracles 
work  in  with  the  total  picture  of  the  Life  of  Christ. 
They  have  a  didactic  value,  which  makes  them  round 
off  the  cycle  of  the  teaching.  This  fact  perhaps  leaves 
some  opening  for  the  possibility  that  here  and  there 
what  was  originally  parable  may  in  course  of  trans- 
mission have  hardened  into  miracle.  An  example  of 
such  a  possibility  would  be  the  withering  of  the  Fig-tree 
(Mk  iii2-"2o.  25  11  compared  with  Lk  if-^).  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  just  as  possible  that  parable  and  miracle 
may  stand  side  by  side  as  a  double  enforcement  of  the 
same  lesson.  The  story  of  the  Temptation  is  proof  that 
Jesus  would  not  hesitate  to  clothe  His  teaching  in  a  ^^ 
form  at  once  natural  and  impressive  to  that  generation, 
though  it  is  less  so  to  ours.  In  this  He  only  takes  up  a 
marked  characteristic  of  the  OT  Prophets. 

§  42.  (v.)  Historical  Necessity  of  Miracles.  —  The  truth 
is  that  the  historian  who  tries  to  construct  a  reasoned 
picture  of  the  Life  of  Christ  finds  that  he  cannot  dispense 
with  miracles.  He  is  confronted  with  the  fact  that  no 
sooner  had  the  Life  of  Jesus  ended  in  apparent  failure 
and  shame  than  the  great  body  of  Christians  —  not  an 
individual  here  and  there,  but  the  mass  of  the  Church  — 
passed  over  at  once  to  the  fixed  belief  that  He  was  God. 
8 


114  TEACHING  AND  MIRACLES 

By  what  conceivable  process  could  the  men  of  that  day 
have  arrived  at  such  a  conclusion,  if  there  had  been 
really  nothing  in  His  life  to  distinguish  it  from  that  of 
ordinary  men  ?  We  have  seen  that  He  did  not  work 
the  kind  of  miracles  which  they  expected.  The  miracles 
in  themselves  in  any  case  came  short  of  their  expecta- 
tions. But  this  makes  it  all  the  more  necessary  that 
there  must  have  been  something  about  the  Life,  a 
broad  and  substantial  element  in  it,  which  they  could 
recognize  as  supernatural  and  divine  —  not  that  we  can 
recognize,  but  which  they  could  recognize  with  the 
,  ideas  of  the    time.     Eliminate   miracles    from   the   career 

of  Jesus,  and  the  belief  of  Christians,  from  the  first 
moment  that  we  have  undoubted  contemporary  evidence 
of  it  (say  a.d.  50),  becomes  an  insoluble  enigma. 

§  43.  (vi.)  Natural  Congruity  of  Miracles.  —  And  now, 
if  from  the  belief  of  the  Early  Church  we  turn  to  the 
beUef  of  the  Church  in  our  day,  there  a  different  kind 
of  congruity  appears,  but  a  congruity  that  is  no  less 
stringent.  If  we  still  believe  that  Christ  was  God,  not 
merely  on  the  testimony  of  the  Early  Church,  but  on 
the  proof  afforded  by  nineteen  centuries  of  Christianity, 
there  will  be  nothing  to  surprise  us  in  the  phenomena  of 
miracles.  '  If  the  Incarnation  was  a  fact,  and  Jesus 
^''  Christ  was  what  He  claimed  to  be.  His  miracles,  so  far 
from  being  improbable,  will  appear  the  most  natural 
thing  in  the  world.  .  .  .  They  are  so  essentially  a  part 
of  the  character  depicted  in  the  Gospels,  that  without 
them  that  character  would  entirely  disappear.  They 
flow  naturally  from  a  Person  who,  despite  His  obvious 
humanity,  impresses  us  throughout  as   being   at   home  in 


THE  MIRACLES   OF  JESUS  II5 

two  worlds.  .  .  .  We  cannot  separate  the  wonderful  life,  or 
the  wonderful  teaching,  from  the  wonderful  works.  They 
involve  and  interpenetrate  and  presuppose  each  other, 
and  form  in  their  insoluble  combination  one  harmonious 
picture'   (Illingworth,  Divine  Immatience,  pp.  88-90). 

If  we  seek  to  express  the  rationale  or  inner  congruity 
of  miracles  in  Biblical  language,  we  shall  find  this 
abundantly  done  for  us  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John. 
Miracles  arise  from  the  intimate  association  of  the 
Son  with  the  Father  in  the  ordering  of  the  universe, 
especially  in  all  that  relates  to  the  redemption  of  man. 
When  challenged  by  the  Jews  for  healing  a  sick  man 
upon  the  Sabbath,  Jesus  replied,  'My  Father  worketh 
even  until  now  {i.e.  since,  and  in  spite  of  the  institution 
of  the  Sabbatical  Rest),  I  am  working  also '  (Jn  5'^)  ; 
the  same  law  holds  for  the  actions  of  the  Son  as  for  the 
conservation  of  the  universe.  And  He  goes  on,  'Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  him- 
self, but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  doing :  for  what 
things  soever  he  doeth,  these  the  Son  also  doeth  in  like 
manner.  For  the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  showeth 
him  all  things  that  himself  doeth :  and  greater  works 
than  these  will  he  show  him,  that  ye  may  marvel ' 
{ib.  w^^-^).  Many  other  passages  at  once  suggest 
themselves  to  the  same  effect  (Jn  3^  S*'^^-  14^").  The 
Son  is  '  sent '  by  the  Father,  and  He  is  invested  with 
full  powers  for  the  accomplishment  of  that  mission ;  or 
rather  with  reference  to  it  and  for  the  purpose  of  it,  He 
and  the  Father  are  one  (Jn  lo'^). 

The  sayings  of  this  character  are  all  from  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  But  there  is  a  near  approach  to  them  in  the 
well-known    passage    Mt    11^  ||    ('All    things    have    been 


Il6  TEACHING  AND   MIRACLES 

delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father ') ;  and  this  does  but 
form  a  natural  climax  to  others,  which,  without  it,  would 
seem  to  leave  something  wanting  and  incomplete. 

§  44.  (vii.)  The  Unexplained  Element  in  Miracles. — 
When  all  the  above  considerations  are  borne  in  mind, 
some  may  think  that  there  is  a  residuum  which  is  not 
wholly  explained  —  not  so  much  as  to  the  fact  of  miracles, 
or  as  to  their  congruity  with  the  Person  of  Jesus,  but 
rather  as  to  the  method  of  particular  miracles  in  the 
form  in  which  they  have  come  down  to  us.  It  is  quite 
inevitable  that  there  should  be  such  a  residuum,  which 
is  only  another  name  for  the  irreducible  interval  which 
must,  when  all  is  done,  separate  the  reflective  science- 
trained  intellect  of  the  twentieth  century  from  the 
naive  chroniclers  of  the  first.  Jesus  Himself  would 
seem  to  have  been  not  without  a  prescience  that  this 
would  be  the  case.  At  any  rate  there  is  a  permanent 
significance,  unexhausted  by  the  occasion  which  gave 
rise  to  it,  in  His  reply  to  the  disciples  of  the  Baptist, 
while  appealing  to  works  which,  however  beneficent, 
would.  He  knew,  fail  to  realize  all  the  Baptist's  expecta- 
tions :  *  Blessed  is  he  that  shall  find  no  scandal  —  or 
stumbling-block  —  in  me'  (Mt  ii^||).  There  was  doubt- 
less something  left  in  the  mind  of  John  which  he  could 
not  perfectly  piece  together  with  the  rest  of  such  mental 
outfit  as  he  had.  And  so  we  may  be  sure  that  it  will  be 
in  every  age,  though  age  after  age  has  only  helped  to 
strengthen  the  conviction  that  the  modes  of  thought  of  the 
Zeitgeist  may  and  do  continually  change,  but  that  the  worth 
for  man  of  the  Person  of  Jesus  does  not  change  but  is 
eternal. 


THE   MIRACLES   OF  JESUS  11/ 

Literature.  —  Probably  the  best  work  in  English  at  the  present 
moment  on  the  presuppositions  of  the  Gospel  Miracles  would  be 
Illingworth's  Divine  Immanence  (1898),  a  sequel  to  his  Bampton 
Lectures  (1894).  It  may  be  worth  while  to  compare  Gore,  Bamp. 
Led.  (1891).  On  the  other  hand,  Mozley's  lectures  on  the  same 
foundation  for  1865  have  reference  rather  to  a  phase  of  the  con- 
troversy which  is  now  past.  There  is,  of  course,  much  on  the 
subject  in  the  various  treatises  on  Apologetics ;  and  articles  are 
constantly  appearing  in  magazines,  as  well  as  shorter  monographs, 
both  British  and  Foreign.  The  present  writer  cannot  say  —  or  at 
least  cannot  remember  —  that  he  has  gained  as  much  from  these 
several  sources  as  in  the  case  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  He  would 
like,  however,  to  mention  with  gratitude.  Grounds  of  Theistic 
and  Christian  Belief,  by  Dr.  G.  P.  Fisher  of  Yale  (Scribner's, 
New  York,  1883;  revised  edit.  1903),  a  very  clear  and  temperate 
statement  of  the  evidence  for  the  Gospel  Miracles  on  older  lines ; 
the  chap,  on  Miracles  in  Dr.  A.  B.  Bruce,  Chief  end  of  Revelation 
(3rd  ed.  1890)  ;  and  three  short  lectures,  entitled  The  Supernatural 
in  Christianity  (by  Drs.  Rainy,  Orr,  and  Marcus  Dods,  in  reply  to 
Pfleiderer,  Edinb.  1894). 

The  most  considerable  attempt  in  English  to  construct  Chris- 
tianity without  Miracles  is  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott's  The  Kernel  and 
the  Husk  (1886),  and  The  Spirit  on  the  Waters  i\^'l).  With  this 
may  be  compared  Dr.  Salmon's  Non-miraculous  Christianity  {and 
other  Sermons). 

There  are  well-known  systematic  works  on  the  Gospel  Miracles  by 
the  late  Archbishop  Trench  and  Dr.  A.  B.  Bruce. 


CHAPTER   V. 

THE   LATER   MINISTRY. 

C.   Middle  or  Culminating  Period  of  the 
Active  Ministry. 

§  45.  Scene.  —  Galilee,   with    an    excursion    across  the 
northern  border. 

Time.  —  Passover  to  shortly  before  Tabernacles  a.d. 
28. 
Mt  14^-1833,  Mk  6"-9^,  Lk  9^-=°,  Jn  6. 
This  is  a  period  of  culminations,  in  which  the 
prophecy  of  Simeon  begins  to  be  conspicuously 
fulfilled :  *  Behold,  this  child  is  set  for  the  falling 
and  rising  up  of  many  in  Israel,  and  for  a  sign 
which  is  spoken  against'  (Lk  2^).  The  main 
culminations  are  (i.)  of  the  zeal  of  the  populace, 
followed  by  their  disappointment  and  falling  away; 
(ii.)  the  still  greater  embitterment  of  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees ;  (iii.)  the  awakening  at  last  of  a 
more  intelligent  faith  in  the  disciples,  reaching  its 
highest  point  in  St.  Peter's  confession ;  (iv.)  the 
Divine  testimony  to  Jesus  in  the  Transfiguration; 
(v.)  the  consciousness  of  victory  virtually  won  in 
119 


120  THE  LATER  MINISTRY 

Jesus  Himself  (Mt  ii=«-«',  Lk  20^^--*) ;  (vi.)  at 
the  same  time  He  sees  clearly,  and  begins  to 
announce  the  seeming  but  transient  catastrophe, 
the  final  humiliation  and  exaltation,  in  which  His 
work  is  to  end. 
The  time  of  this  period  is  clearly  marked  by  the 
occurrence  of  the  Passover  of  the  year  a.d.  28  at  its 
beginning,  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (in  October  of 
the  same  year)  at  the  end.  It  is  probable  that  within 
these  six  months  all  the  salient  events  referred  to  below 
may  be  included.  The  place  is,  broadly  speaking, 
Galilee,  beginning  with  the  shores  of  the  lake  (Jn  6)  ; 
but  in  the  course  of  the  period  there  falls  a  wider  circuit 
than  any  that  had  been  hitherto  taken.  In  this  circuit 
Jesus  touched  on,  and  probably  crossed,  the  borders  of 
the  heathen  districts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  (Mk  7^^||)  ;  He 
then  returned  eastwards  through  the  neighbourhood  of 
Casarea  Philippi  (Mk  8^||)  ;  and  He  finally  returned  to 
Capernaum,  not  directly,  but  after  taking  a  round  to 
the  east  of  the  lake  and  through  Decapolis  (Mk  7^^). 
The  motive  was  probably  not  so  much  on  this  occasion 
extended  preaching  as  to  avoid  the  ferment  excited 
among  the  populate  of  Central  Galilee.  Observe  Mk 
y'^*  and  the  strict/  injunctions  of  secrecy  in  Mk  7^  8^|| 
9«||.  If  we  may  follow  our  authorities  (Mk  7^^-  S'^-  "^•) 
there  was  a  certain  amount  of  active  work  at  the  end  of 
the  circuit;  biat  Mt  n^o*-  appears  to  mark  the  practical 
close  of  the  Galilsean  ministry. 

The  greater  part  of  this  circuit  lay  within  the 
dominions^  not  of  Herod  Antipas,  where  Jesus  had 
hitherto  'mainly  worked,  but  of  his  brother  Philip. 
Now  we/know  that  the   hostility  to   Him  was  shared  by 

, J 


MIDDLE   PERIOD  121 

the  Pharisees  with  the  partisans  of  Herod  (Mk  3^  and 
p.  61  above;  cf.  also  Mk  8^.  We  have  also,  but 
probably  at  a  still  later  date,  threats,  which  if  not 
actually  made  by  Herod  Antipas  were  at  least  plausibly 
attributed  to  him  (Lk  13^^).  In  any  case,  it  is  likely 
enough  that  intrigues  were  on  foot  between  the  two 
allied  parties  of  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians ;  and 
some  writers,  of  whom  Keim  may  be  taken  as  an 
example,  have  attributed  to  these  what  they  describe  as 
a  *  flight '  on  the  part  of  Jesus.  They  may  have  had 
something  to  do  with  His  retirement. 

This  division  of  our  Lord's  Life  includes  several 
narratives  (the  Feedings  of  the  Five  and  Four  Thousand, 
the  Walking  on  the  Water,  the  Transfiguration)  which 
sound  especially  strange  to  modern  ears.  We  must 
repeat  the  warning,  that  if  a  twentieth  century  observer 
had  been  present  he  would  have  given  a  different  ac- 
count of  the  occurrences  from  that  which  has  come 
down  to  us.  But  the  mission  of  Jesus  was  to  the  first 
century  and  not  to  the  twentieth.  His  miracles  as 
well  as  His  teaching  were  adapted  to  the  mental  habits 
of  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed.  It  is  wasted 
ingenuity  to  try,  by  rationalizing  the  narratives,  to 
translate  them  into  a  language  more  like  our  own. 
Essential  features  in  them  are  sure  to  escape  in  the  pro- 
cess. It  should  be  enough  to  notice  that  the  narratives 
in  question  all  rest  on  the  very  best  historical  authority. 
They  belong  to  the  oldest  stratum  of  the  evangelical 
tradition.  And  more  than  this :  if  we  suppose,  as  it  is 
not  unreasonable  to  suppose,  that  the  Feedings  of  the 
Five  and  of  the  Four  Thousand  are  different  versions  of 
the   same   event,   this   would    throw   us    back    some   way 


122  THE   LATER  MINISTRY 

behind  even  that  oldest  stratum ;  because  we  should 
have  to  allow  an  additional  period  of  time  for  the  two 
versions  to  arise  out  of  their  common  original  (see 
p.  io8  Slip.).  This  would  carry  us  back  to  a  time  when 
numbers  must  have  been  living  by  whom  the  truth  Of 
that  which  is  reported  might  be  controlled.  In  the  case 
of  the  Feeding  of  the  Five  Thousand,  we  have  the  con- 
firmatory evidence  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  which  for 
those  who  believe  the  author  to  have  been  an  eye- 
witness must  be  little  less  than  decisive. 

§  46.  i.  The  Enthusiasm  and  FalUng-away  of  the 
Populace.  —  It  was  just-  before  the  Passover  of  the  year 
28  that  the  impression  which  Jesus  had  made  on  the 
people  of  Gahlee  seemed  to  reach  its  climax.  This  was 
the  result  of  what  is  commonly  known  to  us  as  the 
Feeding  of  the  Five  Thousand.  The  fact  that  the 
Passover  was  so  near  at  hand  accounts  for  a  special 
gathering  of  pilgrims,  or  those  preparing  for  the 
journey,  from  the  Galitean'  towns.  In  such  a  mixed 
multitude  there  would  doubtless  be  "many  Zealots  and 
enthusiastic  expectants  of  the  '  deliverance  of  Israel.' 
The  miracle  convinces  these  that  they  have  at  last 
found  the  leader  of  whom  they  are  in  search.  They  are 
aware  that  hitherto  He  had  shown  no  signs  of  en- 
couraging the  active  measures  which  they  desired : 
and  therefore  they  hasten  to  seize  the  person  of  Jesus  in 
order  to  compel  Him  to  put  Himself  at  their  head,  with 
or  against  His  will.  He,  however,  retires  from  them; 
and  their  disappointment  is  complete  when  on  the  next 
day  the  more  determined  among  them,  after  following 
Him  at   no   little  trouble   into   the   synagogue   at   Caper- 


MIDDLE   PERIOD  I23 

naum,  find  themselves  put  off  with  what  they  would 
regard  as  a  mystical  and  unintelligible  discourse.  This 
is  a  turning-point  in  what  had  been  for  some  time  a 
gathering  movement  on  the  part  of  many  who  were 
willing  to  see  in  Jesus  a  Messiah  such  as  they  expected, 
but  who  were  baffled  and  drew  back  when  they  found 
the  ideal  presented  to  them  so  different  from  their  own. 
And  the  crisis  once  past,  every  possible  precaution  was 
taken  to  ensure  that  it  should  not  recur  (Mk  ^^*■  ^  8^\\ 
9^11,  as  above). 

Are  the  two  Feedings  of  Mk  6^'>-^  ||  and  Mk  8^-9  ||  to  be  regarded 
as  two  events  or  one  ?  Besides  the  general  resemblance  between 
the  two  narratives,  a  weighty  argument  in  favour  of  the  latter 
hypothesis  is,  that  in  the  second  narrative  the  disciples'  question 
appears  to  imply  that  the  emergency  was  something  new.  They 
could  hardly  have  put  this  question  as  they  did  if  a  similar  event 
had  happened  only  a  few  weeks  before.  The  different  numbers 
are  just  what  would  be  found  in  two  independent  traditions.  The 
.  decision  will,  however,  depend  here  (as  in  the  instances  noted  above) 
on  the  degree  of  strictness  with  which  we  interpret  the  narrative 
generally. 

The  discourse  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum,  Jn  6-^'^^,  works 
up  to  one  of  those  profound  truths  which  fixed  themselves  especi- 
ally in  the  memory  of  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  is  not 
a  direct  reference  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  it  is 
a  preparatory  statement  of  the  deep  principle  of  which  that  Sacra- 
ment is  the  expression.  We  shall  have  more  to  say  on  this  head 
below  (see  p.  165). 

§  47.  ii.  Widening  Breach  with  the  Pharisees.  —  More 
than  one  incident  occurs  in  this  period  which  points  to 
the  increasing  tension  of  the  relations  between  Jesus 
and  the  Pharisees  (Mk  8"-  ^^).  But  the  decisive  passage 
is  Mk  7"^ II,  the  severity  of  which  anticipates  the 
denunciations   of  the   last   Passover.      In   this  Jesus    cuts 


124  THE  LATER   MINISTRY 

away  root  and  branch  of  the  Pharisaic  traditions  and 
exposes  their  essential  immorahty.  From  this  time 
onwards  the    antagonism   is  open  and  declared. 

§48.  iii.  The  Climax  of  Faith  among  the  Twelve;  St. 
Peter's  Confession.  —  We  have  seen  how  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  multitudes  reached  its  climax  after  the  Feeding 
of  the  Five  Thousand,  but  did  not  recover  from  the 
rebuff  which  it  then  received,  and  from  that  time  more 
or  less  collapsed,  until  it  flamed  up  for  a  moment 
at  the  triumphal  entry.  The  Twelve  were  in  a  better 
position  to  enter  into  the  mind  of  their  Master,  and  it 
was  but  natural  that  they  should  be  more  steadfastly 
attached  to  His  person.  Hence  their  faith  survived  the 
shocks  which  it  was  continually  receiving,  and  St. 
Peter  gave  the  highest  expression  which  it  had  yet 
received,  when,  in  reply  to  a  direct  question,  he  ex- 
claimed, *  Thou  art  the  Christ  [the  Son  of  the  Living 
God]  '  (Mt  1 6^^"^  II).  Jesus  marked  His  sense  of  the 
significance  of  the  confession  by  words  of  warm  com- 
mendation. He  attributes  it,  indeed,  to  a  direct  in- 
spiration from  Heaven.  The  value  of  the  confession 
stands  out  all  the  more  clearly  when  it  is  compared 
with  the  doubts  of  the  Baptist  (see  above,  p.  56).  We 
are  not  to  suppose  that  St.  Peter  had  by  any  means  as 
yet  a  full  conception  of  all  that  was  impHed  in  his  own 
words.  He  still  did  not  understand  what  manner  of 
Messiah  he  was  confessing  ;  but  his  merit  was,  that  in 
spite  of  the  rude  shocks  which  his  faith  had  been 
receiving,  and  in  spite  of  all  that  was  paradoxical  and 
enigmatical  in  the  teaching  and  actions  of  his  Master, 
he  saw  through  his  perplexities  the    gleams  of   a    nature 


MIDDLE  PERIOD  12$ 

which    transcended    his    experience,  and    he  was    willing 
to  take  upon  trust  what  he  could  not  comprehend. 

It  would  be  out  of  place  to  attempt  here  to  discuss  the  conflict- 
ing interpretations  of  the  blessing  pronounced  upon  St.  Peter. 
We  can  only  say  that  although  it  is  not  adequate  to  explain  the 
blessing  as  pronounced  upon  the  confession  and  not  upon  St. 
Peter  himself,  it  is  nevertheless  distinctly  pronounced  upon  St. 
Peter  as  confessing.  It  is  in  the  fact  that  there  is  at  last  one  who, 
in  the  face  of  all  difficulties,  recognizes  from  his  heart  that  Jesus 
is  what  He  is,  that  the  first  stone,  as  it  were,  of  the  Church  is 
laid ;  other  stones  will  be  built  upon  and  around  it,  and  the  edifice 
will  rise  day  by  day,  but  the  beginning  occurs  but  once,  and  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  Church  occurred  then.  It  is  not  to 
detract  from  the  merit  of  St.  Peter  —  which  so  far  as  the  build- 
ing up  of  the  Church  is  concerned  was  as  high  as  human  merit 
could  be  —  if  we  interpret  the  blessing  upon  him  in  the  light  of 
I  Co  3^1.  The  Church  has  but  one  foundation,  in  the  strict  sense, 
Jesus  Christ.  It  was  precisely  to  this  that  St.  Peter's  confession 
pointed.  But  that  confession  was  the  first  of  all  like  confessions ; 
and  in  that  respect  might  well  be  described  as  the  first  block  of  stone 
built  into  the  edifice. 

§  49.  iv.  The  Culminating  Point  in  the  Missionary 
Labours  of  Jesus.  —  God  seeth  not  as  man  seeth.  To 
the  average  observer,  even  to  one  who  was  acquainted 
with  St.  Peter's  confession,  it  would  seem  to  be  the 
solitary  point  of  light  in  the  midst  of  disappointment 
and  failure.  A  retrospect  of  the  Galilsean  ministry 
seemed  to  show  little  but  hard-heartedness,  ingratitude, 
and  unbeUef  (Jn  12'''"*').  Our  Lord  Himself  can  only 
denounce  woe  upon  the  cities  which  enjoyed  most  of 
His  presence  (Mt  ii'^^-^^H).  And  yet  about  the  same 
time  two  sayings  are  recorded  which  mark  a  deep 
inward  consciousness  of  success.  The  ministry  which 
might  seem  to  be  in  vain  was  not  really  in  vain,  but 
potential  and  in  promise ;  to  the  eye  which  saw  into  the 


126  THE  LATER   MINISTRY 

future  as  well  as  into  the  present,  and  which  looked 
into  the  inmost  counsels  of  the  Father,  the  crisis  might 
even  be  regarded  as  past.  One  of  these  sayings  is  Lk 
10*^  The  success  of  the  disciples  in  casting  out 
demons  draws  from  Jesus  the  remark  that  the  power  of 
the  prince  of  darkness  is  broken.  And  about  the  same 
time,  as  if  ingratitude  and  opposition  counted  for 
nothing,  He  pours  out  His  thanks  to  the  Father :  '  I 
thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that 
thou  didst  hide  these  things  from  the  wise  and  under- 
standing, and  didst  reveal  them  unto  babes;  yea, 
Father,  for  so  it  was  well-pleasing  in  thy  sight '  (Mt 
ii-^''-  II).  The  next  verse  in  both  Gospels  contains  the 
clearest  expression  in  the  Synoptics  of  that  sense  of 
oneness  with  the  Father  which  is  brought  out  so 
pointedly  in  John.  And  the  verses  which  follow  in 
Matthew  are  that  wonderful  invitation  :  'Come  unto 
me,'  etc.  He  who  understands  this  group  of  sayings 
has  found  his  way  to  the  heart  of  Christianity. 

§  50.  v.  The  Transfiguration.  —  To  the  confession  of 
the  apostle  and  to  the  words  of  thanksgiving,  which 
are  also  words  of  serene  contentment  and  inward 
assurance,  there  was  not  wanting  an  outward  Divine 
sanction.  This  was  given  in  the  scene  which  is  known 
to  us  as  the  Transfiguration  (Mk  9^*||).  The  narrative 
of  the  Transfiguration  reminds  us,  in  more  ways  than 
one,  of  those  of  the  Baptism  and  Temptation.  Once 
again  the  apostles  hear  words  which  seem  to  come 
from  Heaven  confirming  the  mission  of  their  Master. 
At  the  same  time  they  see  a  vision  which  brings  out 
the   significance   of  that   mission  in   a  way  for  which   as 


MIDDLE   PERIOD  1 27 

yet  they  can  hardly  have  been  prepared.  The  appear- 
ance of  Moses  and  Elijah  by  the  side  of,  and  as  it  were 
ministering  to,  Jesus,  symbolized  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  as  leading  up  to  and  receiving  their  fulfilment 
in  the  Gospel. 


It  is  impossible  not  to  see  the  appropriateness  of  this  Divine 
testimony  to  the  mission  of  Jesus  occurring  just  where  it  does. 
That  unique  relationship  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  which  forms 
the  constant  background  of  the  narrative  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
and  is  not  less  the  background  —  real,  if  not  so  apparent  —  of  the 
Synoptics,  could  not  but  assert  itself  from  time  to  time.  And  what 
time  could  be  fitter  for  a  clear  pronouncement  of  it  than  this,  when 
outward  circumstances  were  for  the  most  part  so  discouraging,  and 
when  the  prospect  was  becoming  every  day  nearer  and  more  certain 
of  the  fatal  and  terrible  end  !  If  the  Son  must  needs  go  down  into 
the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death,  the  Father's  face  will  shine 
upon  Him  for  a  moment  before  He  enters  it  with  a  brightness  which 
will  not  be  obscured. 

As  bearing  upon  the  essentially  historical  character  of  the  narra- 
tive, however  difficult  and  even  impossible  it  may  be  for  us  to  recon- 
struct its  details  in  such  a  way  that  we  could  be  said  to  understand 
them,  note  (i)  the  significance  of  the  appearance  of  Moses  and 
Elijah  at  a  time  when  that  significance  can  have  been  but  very  imper- 
fectly apprehended  by  the  disciples,  and  when  there  was  absolutely 
nothing  to  suggest  such  an  idea  to  them;  and  (2)  the  Transfiguration 
comes  within  the  cycle  of  events  in  regard  to  which  a  strict  silence 
was  to  be  observed.  This  striking  and  peculiar  stamp  of  genuineness 
was  not  wanting  to  it.  We  may  note  also  (3)  the  random  speech  of 
St.  Peter  (Mk  g^\\)  as  a  little  graphic  and  authentic  touch  which  had 
not  been  forgotten. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  the  enlargements  in  Lk  g^^^-  were 
merely  editorial,  but,  like  not  a  few  added  details  in  this  Gospel, 
they  become  more  impressive  upon  reflexion.  The  other  evan- 
gelists throw  no  light  upon  the  subject  of  the  converse  between  the 
glorified  figures;  Luke  alone  says  that  they  'spake  of  his  decease 
which  he  was  about  to  accomplish  at  Jerusalem.'  This  was,  we 
may  be  sure,  the  subject  which  deeply  occupied  the  mind  of  Jesus 
at  this  time;  and  it  is  hardly  less  certain  that  the  particular 
aspect  of  it  which   would   be   most   present   to    Him   would  be   its 


128  THE  LATER   MINISTRY 

relation  to  the  prophetic  Scriptures  of  OT  (and  the  Law  also  had 
its  prophetic  side).  We  might  expect  an  appearance  of  Isaiah 
rather  than  Elijah;  but  Elijah  was  the  typical  prophet,  and  the 
Jews  expected  his  appearing  (cf.  Wetstein  on  Mt  17^).  The  other 
peculiar  detail  in  Luke,  that  '  Peter  and  they  that  were  with  him 
were  heavy  with  sleep,'  may  well  seem  confirmatory  of  the  view 
{_e.g.^  of  Weiss  and  Beyschlag,  that  the  scene  was  presented  to  the 
three  apostles  in  divinely  caused  vision. 

§  51.   vi.     The  Prophecies  of  Death  and  Resurrection. 

—  The  period  we  are  describing  is  a  kind  of  water-shed, 
which  marks  not  only  the  summit  of  the  ascent  but  the 
beginning  of  the  descent.  We  have  seen  how  this  was 
the  case  with  the  enthusiasm  of  the  multitude :  it  was 
also  the  case  with  Christ  Himself,  The  confession  of 
St.  Peter  was  immediately  followed,  and  the  Trans- 
figuration both  preceded  and  followed,  by  distinct  pro- 
phecies of  the  fatal  end  which  was  to  close  His  ministry 

—  an  end  fatal  in  the  eyes  of  men,  but  soon  to  be  can- 
celled by  His  resurrection.  As  these  prophecies  will  meet 
us  again  in  the  next  period,  to  which  they  give  its 
dominant  character,  we  will  reserve  the  discussion  of  them 
till  then. 

D.   Close  of  the  Active  Period  :  the 
Messianic  Crisis  in  View. 

§  52.     Scene.  — ]xi^'&2i   (Jn    f^-   w^^)  and    Peraea   (Mk 

10' II,  Jn  10^). 
Time.  —  Tabernacles  a.d.  28  to  Passover  a.d.  29. 

Mt  19^-20^  Mk  10,  Lk  9^^-19'^  (for  the  most  part 
not  in  chronological  order),  Jn  7^-11^''. 

In  this  period  we  may  note  more  particularly 
(i.)  the  peculiar  section  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel 
which   might    on    a    superficial    view    seem    to    be 


CLOSE  OF  THE  ACTIVE  PERIOD  129 

placed    in   this   period ;     (ii.)    that    portion   of  the 
Johannean    narrative    which    really    belongs    to    it ; 
(iii.)   the  general  character  of  our  Lord's  Teaching 
at  this  time  ;    (iv.)   in  particular,  the  prophecies  of 
Death  and  Resurrection ;  and    (v.)  the  hints  which 
are    given    of    a    special    significance    attaching    to 
these   events. 
The   time   of  this  period   extends    from   the   Feast   of 
Tabernacles    in    a.d.    28    to    the    Passover    of    a.d.    29." 
There  is  more  difificulty  in   mapping   out  the   distribution 
of    its     parts    topographically.      We     have     some     clear 
landmarks    if   we     follow    the    guidance    of    the    Fourth 
Gospel,     The    events    of    the    section    Jn    7^-10^^    partly 
belong   to   the   Feast   of  Tabernacles   and   in   part   follow 
at  no  great  interval  after  it.     We  have  again   in  Jn   10^ 
a    clear    indication    of   time    and    place,    the    Feast    of 
Dedication   at    Jerusalem.      This    would   be   towards    the 
end    of  December.     After   that,    Jesus    withdrew   beyond 
Jordan  to  the  place  where  *  John  was  at  the  first  baptiz- 
ing'  (Jn   10'"').     Here  He  made  a  lengthened   stay,   and 
it   was   from   hence   that   He   paid   His   visit   to   Bethany 
for   the   raising    of   Lazarus.     Then   He   again   retired    to 
a   city    called   Ephraim   on   the   edge    of    the    wilderness 
north-east    of   Jerusalem,   where   He   remained    until   the 
Jews   began   to    gather    together    to   attend   the   Passover 
(Jn    11^^).     We   have    thus   a    fairly   connected    narrative 
extending   from   the  beginning   of  the   year   to  the  Pass- 
over of  A.D.   29,  the  scene  of  which  is  in  part  Judaea  and 
in   part   Peraea.     We    have   also   a   fixed    point    covering, 
perhaps,  about  a   fortnight  in   the  latter   half  of  October 
and   localized   at  Jerusalem.     But  what  of  the   seven   or 
eight    weeks    which     separate    this    from     the    Feast    of 
9 


I30  THE   LATER   MINISTRY 

Dedication  ?  Is  it  probable  that  Jesus  returned  to 
Galilee  and  continued  His  ministry  there  ?  It  does  not 
seem  so.  The  solemn  and  deliberate  leave-taking  from 
Galilee  is  not  likely  to  have  been  so  broken.  The  prin- 
cipal objection  to  this  view  would  be  that  the  secret 
and  unexpected  visit  to  Jerusalem  at  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles  does  not  seem  consistent  with  the  solemnity 
of  this  leave-taking.  We  may,  however,  suppose  that 
the  Galilaean  ministry  was  practically  complete  before 
this  date,  and  that  strong  expressions  like  those  of  Lk 
9^*^,  if  they  are  to  be  taken  as  they  stand,  refer  to  one 
of  the  later  journeys. 

§  53.  i.  The  so-called  Percean  Ministry.  —  There  is  a 
long  section  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  Lk  9*^-18^,  which 
has  been  often  treated  as  a  single  whole  and  as  contain- 
ing the  record  of  a  special  ministry,  identified  with  the 
last  journey  towards  Jerusalem,  and  having  for  its 
scene  the  lands  beyond  the  Jordan.  This  is  based 
upon  the  fact  that  the  beginning  of  the  section  coincides 
with  Mk  io\  Mt  19^,  and  that  the  end  of  it  brings  us 
to  the  approach  to  Jericho  (Lk  18^).  It  is  true  that 
some  part  of  the  time  preceding  the  last  Passover  was 
spent  in  Persea.  We  know  this  on  the  joint  testimony 
of  the  other  Synoptists  and  St.  John  (Mk  10^,  Mt  19^ 
Jn  10^).  But  to  suppose  that  the  whole  section  must 
be  localized  there  is  to  misunderstand  the  structure 
and  character  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel.  It  is  far  more 
probable  that  he  has  massed  together  a  quantity  of 
material  derived  from  some  special  source  to  which 
he  had  access,  and  which  could  not  be  easily  fitted 
into  the  framework  supplied  to  him  by  St.  Mark. 


CLOSE  OF  THE  ACTIVE   PERIOD  131 

When  we  come  to  examine  these  materials  in  detail,  it  would 
seem  probable  that  they  belong  to  very  different  periods  in  our 
Lord's  ministry.  Some  incidents,  for  instance,  appear  to  assume 
those  easier  relations  to  the  Pharisees  which  we  have  seen  to  be 
characteristic  of  the  earlier  period  (Lk  ii^^  [but  not  w.*^^']  14^*). 
It  would  be  natural  also  to  refer  to  this  or  the  middle  period  the 
three  parables  of  ch.  15  (Weiss,  Leben  Jesu,  i.  507).  On  the  other 
hand,  some  of  the  incidents  are  practically  dated  by  their  co- 
incidence with  the  other  Gospels :  while  others,  like  the  severer 
denunciations  of  the  Pharisees  and  eschatological  sections  such  as 
Lk  1322-30  i720_ig8^  are  referred  to  the  later  period  by  their  subject- 
matter.  It  would  be  wrong  to  lay  too  much  stress  on  mere 
symmetry;  but  when  a  natural  sequence  suggests  itself,  it  may 
be  accepted  as  having  such  probability  as  can  be  attained.  The 
document  which  St.  Luke  is  using  in  this  part  has  preserved  for  us 
discourses  of  the  utmost  value,  and  it  is  largely  to  them  that  the 
Gospel  owes  its  marked  individuality. 

§  54.  ii.  The  Johannean  Narrative  of  this  Period. — 
The  historical  value  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  comes  out 
strongly  in  this  period.  Rarely  has  any  situation  been 
described  with  the  extraordinary  vividness  and  truth  to 
nature    of    ch.    7     (see     esp.     vv."-i^- ^^r- ^i- ^2. 4(W2>)  _       ^^^ 

less  graphic  are  the  details  of  ch.  9 ;  and  there  is 
marked  precision  in  the  statements  of  Jn  lo^^-^-  ii**'^^ 
We  note  a  special  intimacy  with  what  passes  in  the 
inner  counsels  of  the  Sanhedrin  (Jn  7*"^  11*"^).  This 
intimate  knowledge  might  have  been  derived  through 
Nicodemus  or  through  the  connexion  hinted  at  in  Jn 
18^^.*  But,  apart  from  the  peculiar  verisimilitude  of 
these  details,  some  such  activity  as  that  described  in 
these  chapters  is  required  to  explain  the  great  cata- 
strophe  which    followed.       It    is    impossible    that    Jesus 

*  The  theory  of  Delff  has  already  been  mentioned  (p.  53  sup^; 
but  it  turns  too  much  upon  a  single  -set  of  data,  and  leads  to  an  arbi- 
trary dissection  of  the  Gospel, 


132  THE   LATER   MINISTRY 

should  have  been  so  much  a  stranger  to  Judaea  and 
Jerusalem  as  the  Synoptic  narrative  would  at  first  sight 
seem  to  make  Him.  For  the  steps  which  lead  up  to 
the  end  we  must  go  to  St.  John. 

§  55.  iii.  The  general  Character  of  the  Teaching  of 
this  Period.  —  There  are  no  doubt  portions  of  the  teach- 
ing of  this  period  preserved  in  the  Synoptics.  But 
except  those  contained  in  Mk  io^"^^||  they  are  difficult 
to  identify  with  certainty.  For  the  greater  part  of  our 
knowledge  of  it  we  are  indebted  to  St.  John,  and  we 
may  observe  that  the  teaching  now  begins  to  take  a 
new  character.  Hitherto  it  has  been  mainly  concerned 
with  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom ;  henceforward  greater 
stress  is  laid  on  the  person  of  the  King.  We  have 
already  noted  the  remarkable  verse  Mt  ii^'||  'All 
things  have  been  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father :  and 
no  one  knoweth  the  Son  save  the  Father ;  neither  doth 
any  know  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom- 
soever the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him.'  This  verse  may 
be  said  to  represent  the  text  which  the  discourses  in  St. 
John  set  in  various  lights.  We  have  now  the  self- 
revelation  of  the  Son  as  the  central  life-giving  and 
light-giving  force  of  humanity.  As  He  is  the  living 
Bread  (Jn  6),  so  is  He  the  living  Water  (Jn  y^"*')  ;  He 
is  the  Light  of  the  world  (Jn  8^  9^)  ;  He  is  the  Good 
Shepherd  (Jn  10"),  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life  (Jn 
11^).  If  we  suppose  that  these  discourses  were  really 
held,  we  shall  understand  better  than  we  could  do 
otherwise  the  state  of  Christian  thought  which  meets 
us  when  we  open  the  first  surviving  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul. 


CLOSE  OF  THE  ACTIVE  PERIOD  1 33 

§  56.  iv.  The  Prophecies  of  Death  and  Resurrection.  — 
From  the  time  of  St.  Peter's  confession  Jesus  began  in 
set  terms  to  foretell  that  His  mission  would  end  in  His 
death,  soon,  however,  to  be  followed  by  His  resurrec- 
tion (Mk  8^^  II).  At  the  moment  of  His  highest  triumph, 
marked  by  the  Transfiguration,  the  same  solemn  pre- 
diction is  repeated  (Mk  9^^),  and  again  yet  a  third  time 
towards  the  end  of  the  period  with  which  we  are  now 
dealing  (Mk  10'^--''*  ||). 

{a)  Even  an  ordinary  observer  might  have  seen  that 
the  signs  of  the  times  were  ominous.  St.  Peter's  con- 
fession showed  no  more  than  one  adherent  whose  fervid 
faith  might  be  supposed  capable  of  resisting  a  pressure 
of  life  or  death.  Herod  Antipas  and  his  faction  were 
hostile.  The  Pharisees  were  yet  more  hostile,  and  their 
(  bitterness  was  growing  every  day.  Within  the  period 
before  us  two  deliberate  attempts  were  made  on  the  life 
of  Jesus  (Jn  8^^  10^^).  And  with  the  certainty  that  i 
the  course  on  which  He  was  bent  would  include  nothing 
to  conciliate  these  antagonisms,  it  was  clear  where  they 
would  end. 

ip')  But  the  foresight  of  Jesus  took  a  wider  range 
than  this.  He  had  laid  it  down  as  a  principle  that  it 
was  the  fate  of  prophets  to  be  persecuted  (Mt  5^^  23^*-  ^''). 
In  particular.  He  had  before  Him  the  example  of  the 
Baptist,  whose  fate  He  associated  with  His  own 
(Mk  9^2f.  II). 

ic)  But   there  was  a   deeper   necessity  even   than   this. 
At  the  Betrayal,  to  him  who  drew  sword  in  His  defence     2t^ 
Jesus   replied   calmly,   *  How  then    should   the   Scriptures 
be    fulfilled,   that    thus   it   must   be  ? '     And   this   is  His 
consistent    language    (comp.    Lk    24^*^-  ^^-  ^^    etc.).      The 


134  THE   LATER   MINISTRY 

mind  of  Jesus  was  steeped  in  the  ancient  prophecies. 
He  had  Himself,  as  we  have  seen,  deUberately  fused 
the  conception  of  the  conquering  Messiah  with  that  of 
the  Suffering  Servant  of  Jehovah,  and  He  as  dehberately 
went  the  way  to  fulfil  these  prophecies  in  His  own 
person.  There  was  nothing  accidental  about  His 
Death.  He  *  set  His  face  steadfastly '  on  the  road 
which  led  to  it. 

{d)  When  we  look  into  its  lessons  we  are  carried 
even  behind  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  We  shall  have 
to  speak  presently  of  the  extraordinary  novelty  of  the 
turn  which  Christ  gave  to  His  mission.  Others  had 
conquered  by  the  exercise  of  force ;  He  was  the  first  to 
set  Himself  to  conquer  by  weakness,  patience,  non- 
resistance.  And  the  natural  and  inevitable  consumma- 
tion of  this  new  method  of  conquest  was  Death. 

((?)  In  all  this  He  was  carrying  out,  and  knew  that  He 
was  carrying  out,  the  Will  of  the  Father.  It  was  con- 
ceivable that  that  Will  might  have  yet  ulterior  objects 
even  beyond  those,  deep  enough  as  we  might  think, 
which  we  have  been  considering.  That  Jesus  ascribed 
to  His  Death  such  an  ulterior  object  we  are  led  to 
believe  by  the  way  in  which  He  speaks  of  it.  The  two 
places  in  which  He  does  so  much  must  next  engage  our 
attention. 

§  57.  v.  Significance  of  the  Death  of  Jesus.  —  The  first 
of  the  passages  to  which  allusion  has  just  been  made  is 
Mk  lo'"  II  'For  verily  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many.'  We  observe  here  that  Jesus  brings 
His  Death  under  the  category  of  service,  and  regards  it 


CLOSE  OF  THE  ACTIVE   PERIOD  1 35 

as  the  climax  of  a  life  of  service.  This  is  one  way  of 
stating  the  great  paradox  to  which  we  have  just  alluded. 
The  kings  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  lordship  over  their 
subjects  ;  but  such  was  not  to  be  the  ambition  of  the 
disciples  of  Christ ;  rather  the  very  opposite ;  and  it  was 
Christ  Himself  who  set  them  the  example.  At  the  end 
of  the  avenue  stood  a  cross,  and  the  Saviour  of  men 
walked  up  to  it  as  if  it  had  been  a  crown.  It  is  a  ques- 
tion of  pressing  interest  how  much  farther  we  may  go 
than  this :  is  the  Xvrpov  dvrt  ttoXAwv  to  be  interpreted 
by  the  dTroXvrpwm^  and  iXaa-rypiov  of  Ro  3^**-,  and  by 
the  language  of  other  similar  passages  ?  By  itself  we 
could  not  say  that  it  compelled  such  an  interpretation; 
but  there  is  nothing  forced  in  supposing  that  the  early 
Church  knew  and  followed  the  mind  of  its  Founder. 
In  that  case  we  should  have  reason  to  think  that  Jesus 
Himself  had  hinted  at  the  sacrificial  character  of  His 
Death,  and  that  He  too  regarded  it  as  propitiatory. 

If  this  passage  suggests  a  sacrificial  aspect  of  one 
kind,  the  other  is  more  explicit  in  bringing  out  sacri- 
ficial associations  of  another.  All  the  extant  accounts 
of  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist  connect  the  Blood 
shed  upon  the  Cross  with  the  founding  of  a  '  [new] 
Covenant.'  This  is  certainly  an  allusion  to  the  in- 
auguration of  the  first  Covenant  with  sacrifice  (cf.  Ex 
24'*-^,  He  9^^^),  and  the  death  of  Christ  is  clearly 
regarded  as  the  Sacrifice  inaugurating  the  second  (see 
below,  p.  166). 

In  other  words,  the  momentous  question  came  before 
the  mind  of  Jesus  whether  the  New  Dispensation  which 
He  was  founding  was  or  was  not  like  the  Old  in  includ- 
ing the  idea  of  Sacrifice.     He  deliberately  answered  that 


V 


136  THE  LATER  MINISTRY 

it  was.  And  He  deliberately  foresaw,  and  as  deliber- 
ately accepted  the  consequence,  that  the  Sacrifice  of 
this  New  Dispensation  could  be  none  other  than  the 
Sacrifice  of  Himself. 

That  which  gives  this  particular  Death  a  value  which 
no  other  death  could  have  had  is  («)  the  fact  that  it  is 
the  Death  of  the  Messiah,  of  One  whose  function  it  is 
to  be  the  Saviour  of  His  people,  and  whose  Death  like 
His  Life  must  in  some  way  enter  into  the  purpose  of 
the  whole  scheme  of  salvation;  and  {(3)  the  further  fact 
that  although  the  Death  is  a  necessity  in  the  sense  that 
it  was  required  for  the  full  development  of  God's 
gracious  purpose,  it  was  nevertheless  a  purely  volun- 
tary act  on  the  part  of  the  Son,  an  expression  of  that 
truly  filial  spirit  in  which  He  made  the  whole  of  the 
Father's  purpose  His  own.  '  The  good  Shepherd 
layeth  down  his  life  for  the  sheep.  .  .  .  Therefore  doth 
the  Father  love  me,  because  I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I 
may  take  it  again.  No  one  taketh  it  away  from  me, 
but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it 
down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again.  This  com- 
mandment received  I  from  my  Father'  (Jn  lo"- ^^*^^).  It 
follows  (y)  that  however  much  it  may  be  right  to  con- 
ceive of  the  Death  of  Christ  as  a  Sacrifice,  and  a 
sacrifice  which  has  for  its  object  the  'remission  of  sins' 
(Mt  26^),  we  must  not  in  connexion  with  it  set  the 
justice  of  God  against  His  mercy,  or  think  of  Him 
as  really  turning  away  His  face  from  the  Son  of  His 
love. 

Literature.  —  The  subject  of  these  last  two  sections  not  only 
comes  into  the  field  of  New  Testament  Theology  in  general  and 
treatises  (like  Wendt's  and  others  named  above)  on  the  Teaching 


CLOSE   OF  THE   ACTIVE   PERIOD  137 

of  Christ,  but  it  necessarily  occupies  a  prominent  place  in  discussions 
of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned 
especially  Ritschl's  Kechtftriigung  tt.  Versohnung,  vol.  ii.  of  which 
goes  elaborately  into  the  exegesis  of  the  leading  passages  (ed.  2,  1882), 
and  a  recent  treatise  by  Kahler,  Zur  Lehre  vott  der  Versohnung 
(Leipzig,  1898),  which  gives  prominence  to  the  relation  of  the 
doctrine  to  the  Life  of  Christ.  A  lengthy  monograph  by  Schwartz- 
kopff  deals  directly  with  our  Lord's  predictions  of  His  Passion 
{Die  Weissagungen  Jesu  Christi  von  seinem  Tode,  u.s.w.,  Gottingen, 
1895;  Eng.  tr.,  T.  &  T.  Clark);  and  'Christ's  Attitude  to  His 
Death '  is  the  title  of  some  striking  articles  by  Dr.  A,  M.  Fairbairn 
in  Expos.  1896,  ii.,  and  1897,  i. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

THE   MESSIANIC  CRISIS. 

E.  The  Messianic  Crisis:  the  Triumphal  Entry, 
THE  Last  Teaching,  Passion,  Death,  Resurrec- 
tion, Ascension. 

§  58.    Scene.  —  Mainly  in  Jerusalem. 
Time.  —  Six   days   before   Passover   to   ten  days  before 
Pentecost  a.d.  29. 

Mt    21^-2820,   Mk    11^-168    [vv.»-2«   an   early  addi- 
tion], Lk  192^-24^^  Jn  12^-2123. 

This  series  of  momentous  events  has  naturally 
furnished  much  matter  for  discussion  and  contro- 
versy, some  of  it  very  recent,  (i.)  Our  first  duty 
will  be  to  sketch  rapidly  the  course  of  the  events 
with  special  reference  to  the  motives  of  the  human 
actors  in  them,  (ii.)  We  must  consider  the  debated 
points  in  the  chronology  of  the  last  week,  (iii.) 
We  shall  have  to  discuss  the  eschatological  teach- 
ing which  the  Synoptists  place  in  this  period, 
(iv.)  A  number  of  points,  critical  and  doctrinal, 
will  meet  us  in  connexion  with  the  Last  Supper, 
(v.)  We  shall  have  in  like  manner  to  consider  both 
the  attestation  and  the  significance  of  the  crown- 
139 


140  THE   MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

ing  event  of  all,  the  Resurrection.  This  will 
include  some  discussion  of  the  Appearances  which 
followed.  Lastly  (vi.),  as  our  subject  is  the  Life 
of  Christ  and  not  the  Gospels,  we  must,  even 
though  in  so  doing  we  cross  the  threshold  of  St. 
Luke's  'second  treatise,'  follow  the  steps  of  the 
Master  to  His  Ascension. 

§  59.  i.  The  Action  atid  the  Actors.  —  Our  four  Gospels, 
taken  together,  in  part  convey  and  in  part  suggest  a 
view  at  once  clear  and  probable  of  the  course  of  events 
which  led  to  the  Crucifixion,  and  of  the  motives  which 
impelled  the  several  actors  in  them.  We  have  seen 
that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  needed  to  explain  the 
heightened  enmity  which  had  so  tragic  an  issue.  A 
residence  in  Jerusalem  and  Bethany  of  four  days  would 
not  be  enough  to  account  for  the  overtures  to  Judas. 
The  events  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  the  Feast  of 
Dedication,  and  the  Raising  of  Lazarus,  with  the 
knowledge  that  Jesus  had  been  teaching  and  making 
disciples  at  no  great  distance  from  Jerusalem,  supply 
what  is  wanted.  And  in  the  case  of  the  Last  Week  the 
touches  which  the  Fourth  Gospel  adds  to  its  prede- 
cessors supplement  them   effectively. 

(a)  The  Populace.  —  In  the  Triumphal  Entry  we  seem 
to  see  a  gleam  once  more  of  the  enthusiasm  which  had 
followed  the  Feeding  of  the  Five  Thousand.  It  was 
probably  quite  as  superficial.  We  may  imagine  the 
crowd  made  up  in  part  of  those  who  had  been  impressed 
by  recent  teaching  beyond  the  Jordan  or  in  Jerusalem 
itself,  or  by  the  news  of  the  still  more  striking  miracle 
wrought    upon     Lazarus :     besides     these,     there     would 


THE   LAST   EVENTS  I41 

doubtless  be  a  contingent  of  pilgrims  from  more  distant 
Galilee,  the  remnant  of  the  crowds  who  had  at  one  time 
or  another  followed  Jesus  there.  But  it  would  be  too 
much  to  expect  that  all,  or  even  many  of  these,  had 
acquired  an  intelligent  insight  into  the  character  of  Him 
whom  they  were  cheering.  They  were  still  in  the 
twilight  of  their  old  Jewish  expectations.  They  sup- 
posed that  the  moment  had  at  last  come  when  the 
hopes  which  they  cherished  would  be  realized,  and 
when  before  the  crowds  assembled  for  the  Passover 
Jesus  would  at  last  put  Himself  forward  as  the  Leader 
for  whom  they  were  waiting.  Nothing,  however,  came 
of  this  seeming  appeal  to  their  enthusiasm.  A  few 
discourses  in  the  temple,  partly  levelled  against  the 
religious  authorities  they  were  most  accustomed  to 
reverence,  but  containing  not  a  word  of  incitement 
against  the  Romans,  and  that  was  all.  What  wonder 
if  their  enthusiasm  died  away,  and  if  in  some  of  the 
fiercer  among  them  it  changed  to  bitter  and  angry 
disappointment !  Doubtless  some  of  these  Zealots 
mingled  with  those  who  cried  '  Crucify  him,  crucify 
him ' ;  it  was  natural  that  they  should  prefer  one  of 
their  own  trade,  like  Barabbas ;  but  the  crowds  in 
Jerusalem  at  Passover  time  were  so  great  that  many  of 
these  fanatics  may  have  had  no  personal  acquaintance 
with  Jesus  at  all.  The  choice  between  Jesus  and 
Barabbas  would  seem  to  them  a  choice  between  a  mock 
leader,  a  dreamer  of  dreams,  who  offered  them  nothing 
but  words,  and  a  true  son  of  the  people  who  had  shown 
himself  ready  to  grip  the  sword  in  the  good  cause. 

(d)    The   Tj-aitor.  —  It   is   possible   that   Judas    Iscariot 
may  have    shared   something   of    these   feelings.      In    the 


142  THE   MESSIANIC    CRISIS 

lists  of  the  apostles  he  is  usually  named  next  to  a 
Zealot.  The  long  course  of  training  which  he  had 
undergone  may  have  failed  to  purge  his  mind  of  the 
carnal  expectations  of  his  countrymen.  It  may  have 
been  a  sudden  access  of  disappointment,  greater  than 
ever  before,  because  the  hopes  by  which  it  had  been 
preceded  had  been  greater,  which  impelled  him  to  seek 
his  interview  with  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin.  It 
has  even  been  suggested  that  he  did  what  he  did  in 
order  to  compel  his  Master  to  declare  Himself,  and 
with  the  belief  that  He  would  at  last  exert  for  the 
deliverance  of  the  nation  the  supernatural  powers  with 
which  He  was  endowed.  For  this  we  have  no  sufficient 
warrant;  and  we  are  told  expressly  (Jn  12^  RV  text  and 
most  Comms.)  that  Judas  was  guilty  of  petty  pilfering 
from  the  common  fund,  and  therefore  may  infer  that  he 
was  accessible  to  the  temptations  of  avarice.  Still,  few 
men  act  from  motives  that  they  cannot  at  least  make 
plausible  to  themselves :  so  that  a  mixture  of  obstinate 
and  misguided  patriotism  is  more  probable  than  pure 
malignity.  If  Judas  had  not  been  at  least  capable  of 
better  things,  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would  have  been 
chosen  to  be  one  of  the  Twelve. 

(^r)  The  Pharisees.  —  By  this  time  between  Jesus  and 
the  Pharisees  there  is  open  war.  Insidious  questions 
are  still  put  to  Him,  but  only  in  order  to  '  ensnare  him 
in  his  talk,'  (Mt  2  2^^|1).  And  on  His  side  Jesus  replied 
to  their  treachery  by  the  sternest  denunciations.  It 
need  not  be  supposed  that  all  '  scribes  and  Pharisees ' 
were  equally  the  object  of  these.  We  know  that  Nico- 
demus  and  Joseph  of  Arimathsea  were  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin;    we  do  not  know  that  they  belonged   to   the 


THE   LAST   EVENTS  1 43 

party  of  the  Pharisees,  but  we  cannot  doubt  that  there 
were  some  Pharisees  like-minded  with  them ;  just  as  we 
learn  from  the  Acts  that  after  the  Resurrection  a  number 
of  the  '  priests '  (Ac  6^)  and  at  least  some  Pharisees  {ib. 
15^)  became  Christians. 

{d)  The  Sadducees.  —  With  the  last  week  of  our  Lord's 
life,  or  rather,  if  we  may  trust  St.  John,  as  far  back  as 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (Jn  7^^),  a  new  party  comes 
into  prominence.  The  Sanhedrin  begins  to  take  official 
action  against  Jesus ;  and,  although  the  Pharisees  had 
some  footing  in  that  body,  its  policy  was  more  deter- 
mined by  the  Sadducees,  to  whom  belonged  most  of  the 
'  chief  priests,'  and  in  particular  Caiaphas,  the  acting 
high  priest,  and  his  yet  more  influential  father-in-law 
and  predecessor  Annas.  As  against  Jesus  the  two 
parties  of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  acted  together,  but 
their  motives  were  different.  The  Pharisees  were 
jealous  for  their  authority  and  traditions,  which  were 
openly  assailed.  The  Sadducees  themselves  rejected 
these  traditions,  —  they  were  selfish  politicians,  who 
played  their  own  game.  Their  motto  was  quieta  non 
niovere.  They  dreaded  any  kind  of  disturbance  which 
might  give  the  Romans  an  excuse  to  take  the  power 
out  of  their  hands  (cf.  Jn.  11*^.  It  is  curious  to  note 
how  from  this  time  onwards  the  bitterest  opposition 
comes  from  the  Sadducees,  while  leading  Pharisees  are 
neutral  or  even  favourable  (Ac  4^^^  23^). 

{e)  Pilate.  —  The  position  of  things  is  this.  The  Jews 
{i.e.  primarily  the  Sanhedrin)  were  bent  upon  bringing 
about  the  death  of  Jesus.  Now  they  themselves  had  not 
the  power  of  life  and  death  (Jn  18^^).  According  to  the 
Talmud,   they  lost   it   forty  years   before   the   destruction 


144  THE   MESSIANIC   CRISIS 

of  Jerusalem,  which  would  be  about  this  very  time.  It 
is  probable,  however,  that  they  did  not  long  continue 
to  possess  it  after  the  annexation  of  Judaea  by  the 
Romans,  This  being  the  case,  they  could  only  act 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Roman  governor. 
This  necessitated  the  putting  forward  of  different 
reasons  from  those  that  really  weighed  with  them- 
selves. Rather  we  should  say  that  there  were  really 
three  sets  of  reasons :  (i.)  The  real  motive  of  the 
Sanhedrin  was  jealousy  of  its  own  authority,  —  on  the 
part  of  the  Sadducees  fear  of  disturbance,  on  the  part 
of  the  Pharisees  resentment  of  the  attacks  upon  them- 
selves and  their  traditions,  and  with  some  of  the  most 
patriotic  among  them  perhaps  disgust  at  a  Messiah 
who  was  not  a  Messiah  in  any  sense  which  they  could 
comprehend,  (ii.)  The  ostensible  reason,  which  with 
some  may  have  been  sincere  enough,  was  the  charge  of 
blasphemy  against  God.  This  charge  they  tried  to 
bring  home,  but  for  a  time  could  not  (Mk  i4^"||),  until 
at  last  they  caught  at  the  confession  of  Jesus  Himself. 
On  the  strength  of  this  He  was  condemned  (Mk  14"-"*"), 
(iii.)  This  charge,  however,  was  not  one  which  they 
could  bring  before  the  governor,  and  therefore  they 
changed  their  ground.  St,  Luke,  who  in  all  these 
scenes  draws  upon  special  and  good  information,  states 
the  accusation  with  more  precision  than  the  other 
Synoptists.  'We  found  this  man  perverting  our 
nation,  and  forbidding  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar,  and 
saying  that  he  himself  is  Christ  a  king '  (or  '  an  anointed 
king,'  RVm  ;  Lk  23-). 

With   this   charge   it    is   that    the   leaders   of  the    San- 
hedrin    come     before     Pilate.       Pilate     has     the     rough 


THE   LAST   EVENTS  I45 

Roman  sense  of  justice,  and  he  feels  that  the  charge 
is  not  proved.  He  sees  no  evidence  that  Jesus  is  really 
a  formidable  conspirator,  or  even  a  conspirator  at  all 
against  the  State.  He  therefore  desires  to  release 
Him ;  but  the  Jews  insist,  the  leaders  being  backed 
by  the  clamour  of  the  crowd.  The  Sanhedrists  know 
the  weak  point  in  Pilate's  armour,  and  they  fasten  upon 
it :  *  If  thou  release  this  man,  thou  art  not  Caesar's 
friend  :  every  one  that  maketh  himself  a  king  speaketh 
against  Caesar'  (Jn  19'",  a  most  lifelike  touch).  For 
themselves  they  protest  their  loyalty.  '  We  have  no 
king  but  Caesar'  (Jn  19^^).  For  many  of  the  Sanhedrin, 
Pharisees  as  well  as  Sadducees,  this  would  be  true, 
and  those  for  whom  it  was  not  would  discreetly  hold 
their  peace.  To  this  pressure  Pilate  in  the  end  gives 
way,  washing  his  hands  of  the  responsibility.  He 
might  have  taken  a  nobler  course,  but  he  felt  insecure 
of  his  position ;  he  knew  that  the  Jews  had  matter  of 
just  complaint  against  him ;  and  sooner  than  face  their 
malice,  with  the  inconveniences  which  it  might  cause, 
he  let  them  have  their  will. 

Literature.  —  With  this  section  may  be  compared  two  works 
of  imagination :  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott,  Philochristus,  London, 
1878;  and  As  Others  Saw  Him,  London,  1895  (written  from  a 
Jewish  point  of  view,  but  sympathetic  and  instructive).  Also 
Chwolson,  Das  letzte  Passainahl  Ckristi,  etc.,  St.  Petersburg 
1892,  Anhang:  'Das  Verhaltniss  d.  Pharisaer,  Sadducaer  u.  der 
Juden  iiberhaupt  zu  Jesus  Christus'  (minimizing  the  opposition 
of  the  Pharisees,  and  laying  the  blame  upon  the  Sadducees.  The 
writer  was  a  distinguished  Orientalist,  Christian,  but  of  Jewish 
birth). 

§  60.    ii.  The  Chronology  of  the  Last  Week.  —  A  number 
of  chronological   difificulties   meet  us   in   the  narrative  of 
10 


146  THE  MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

this  Last  Week.  (i)  The  prima  facie  view  would 
certainly  be  that  the  Anointing  at  Bethany  was  placed 
by  Mark  tu>o  days  (Mk  14^)  and  by  John  six  days  (Jn 
12')  before  the  Passover.  (2)  The  common  opinion  is 
that  the  Crucifixion  took  place  on  a  Friday,  and  the 
Last  Supper  on  the  evening  of  Thursday ;  but  it  has 
also  been  argued  that  the  two  events  took  place  on 
Thursday  and  Wednesday.  (3)  There  is  a  much  larger 
division  of  opinion  as  to  the  date  of  the  Crucifixion  in 
the  Jewish  calendar,  and  the  relation  of  the  Last  Supper 
to  the  Paschal  Meal.  The  Synoptists  seem  to  identify 
the  two,  whereas  St.  John  expressly  places  the  Last 
Supper  before  the  Passover,  and  would  make  the 
Crucifixion  fall  on  Nisan  14.  (4)  The  authorities  also 
appear  to  differ  as  to  the  time  of  day  occupied  by 
the  Crucifixion.  According  to  Mk  15-^  the  time  of  the 
Crucifixion  itself  was  the  'third  hour'  (  =  9  a.m.); 
according  to  Jn  19'*  the  trial  was  not  quite  over  by 
the  'sixth  hour'  (=  noon),  and  therefore  the  Crucifixion 
was  still  later. 

Of  these  discrepancies  No.  2  need  not  detain  us. 
The  view  that  the  Crucifixion  took  place  upon  a 
Thursday  is  almost  pecuhar  to  Dr.  Westcott  {Introd. 
to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  p.  322,  ed.  3).  It  turns 
upon  a  pressing  of  the  phrase  '  three  days  and  three 
nights'  in  Mt  12*',  along  with  the  probability  of  con- 
fusion between  '  preparation  for  the  Passover '  and  the 
more  ordinary  use  of  the  word  in  the  sense  of  '  prepara- 
tion for  the  Sabbath'  {i.e.  Friday).  The  phrasing  of 
Mt  z'f'  is  somewhat  peculiar,  but  not  really  less  so  on 
this  way  of  reckoning  than  the  other,  because  the  day 
described   as    the  'morrow   after   the   Preparation'  would 


THE  LAST   EVENTS  1 47 

be  itself  the  weekly  -n-apaaKevi].  And  Mt  12^  is  due 
only  to  the  evangelist,  and  is  not  supported  by  the 
other  authorities.  [On  the  length  of  the  interval 
between  the  Crucifixion  and  the  Resurrection  see  esp. 
art.  Chronology  of  NT  in  Hastings'  DB  i,  410''  (with 
Field,  O^.  Norv.  iii.  p.  7,  there  referred  to),  and  Wright, 
NT  Problems,  p.  159  ff.] 

No.  I  is  commonly  removed  by  treating  the  note  of 
time  in  Mk  14^  ||  as  referring  to  the  events  of  vv.^-^'^"-" 
and  not  to  the  intervening  narrative  of  vv.'^^.  In 
support  of  this,  Meyer-Weiss  (ed.  8,  ad  loc)  points 
to  analogous  cases  of  intrusive  matter  in  Mk  3^^^" 
^10-25  6i*-29  725-30.  On  the  other  hand,  M'Clellan 
{Gospels,  p.  472  f.)  restricts  the  application  of  Jn  12^ 
to  the  arrival  at  Bethany,  which,  according  to  him, 
was  on  the  afternoon  of  Friday,  Nisan  8.  The  Anoint- 
ing he  would  place  on  the  evening  of  Tuesday,  Nisan 
12.  Either  view  is  possible,  and  neither  can  be  verified. 
If  we  think  that  the  fourth  evangelist  deliberately 
corrects  his  predecessors,  we  shall  probably  give  the 
preference  to  him.  On  such  a  point  Mark  is  not  a 
first-hand  authority,  and  the  connexion  between  his 
placing  of  the  Betrayal  and  of  the  Anointing  may  well 
be  loose. 

As  to  (4)  the  difference  in  regard  to  the  hour  of  the 
Crucifixion,  attempts  have  been  made  with  some  per- 
sistence to  prove  that  St.  John  used  a  different  mode 
of  reckoning  time  from  that  in  common  use.  The 
writer  of  this  was  at  one  time  inclined  to  look  with 
favour  on  these  attempts.  If  the  premiss  could  be 
proved,  the  data  would  work  out  satisfactorily.  But, 
in   view   of   the   articles   by   Mr.    J.   A.    Cross    in    Class. 


148  THE   MESSIANIC   CRISIS 

Rev.  1 89 1,  p.  245  ff.,  and  by  Prof.  Ramsay  in  Expositor, 
1893,  i.  216  ff.,  it  must  definitely  be  said  that  the  major 
premiss  cannot  be  proved,  and  that  the  attempt  to 
reconcile  the  two  statements  on  this  basis  breaks  down 
(cf.  also  Wright,  Problems,  p.   149  ii?). 

The  ancient  solution  of  the  difficulty  was  to  suppose  a  corruption 
(F  for  T,  or  vice  versiV)  of  the  text,  more  often  in  John  than  in 
Mark  ;  and  rightly,  because  in  Mark  there  are  three  several  notes 
of  time  (Mk  15III  '^^-  33||)  which  hang  together.  So  Eus.  ad  Mari- 
num,  with  a  group  of  MSS  scholia  {vid.  Tisch.  on  Jn  19^^),  etc. 
This  solution  is  accepted  by  Mr.  Wright  (^op.  cit.  p.  156  ff.),  and  it 
may  conceivably  hold  good. 

Prof  Ramsay  lays  stress  rather  on  the  rough  and  approximate 
way  in  which  the  ancients  used  the  reckoning  by  hours.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  an  'hour'  with  them  was  a  twelfth  part  of  day- 
light, and  not  a  fixed  space  of  60  measured  minutes,  as  with  us.  If 
the  two  statements  had  been  inverted  —  if  Mk  15-^  had  described 
the  end  of  the  trial  and  Jn  19^*  the  raising  of  the  cross  —  this  elas- 
ticity might  have  amply  covered  both.  As  the  two  passages  stand, 
it  hardly  does  so. 

We  may  ask  ourselves  whether,  supposing  that  the  slaughter  of 
the  Paschal  lambs  began  at  3  p.m.  (the  time  of  slaughter  is  given 
at  3-5  p.m.  by  Jos.  B/ VI.  ix.  3),  there  would  not  be  a  rather  strong 
temptation  on  typological  grounds  to  fix  the  moment  of  the  death 
of  the  Messiah  at  that  hour.  The  other  notes  of  time  would  natu- 
rally be  conformed  to  this.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  St.  John's 
'  sixth  hour '  seems  inconveniently  late  for  the  events  which  have 
to  be  compressed  between  it  and  the  evening.  The  whole  question 
must  be  left  open.  There  is  a  choice  of  possibilities,  but  nothing 
more. 

Can  we  get  beyond  a  similar  choice  on  the  last  and 
most  important  point  (3),  the  discrepancy  as  to  the  day 
of  the  month  of  the  Crucifixion  and  of  the  Last  Supper? 
Perhaps  not. 

It  is  the  Last  Supper  which  the  Synoptists  appear 
to  fix  by  identifying  it  with  the  Passover.  They  say 
expressly    that    on    the    morning    of    the    'first    day    of 


THE   LAST   EVENTS  1 49 

unleavened  bread,  when  they  sacrificed  the  Passover' 
(Mk  i4^"||),  the  disciples  asked  where  the  Passover  was 
to  be  eaten.  This  would  be  on  the  morning  of  Nisan 
14.  In  the  evening,  which  from  twilight  onwards 
would  belong  to  Nisan  15,  would  follow  the  Last 
Supper,  and  on  the  next  afternoon  (still,  on  the  Jewish 
reckoning,  Nisan  15)  the  Crucifixion.  St.  John,  on  the 
other  hand,  by  a  number  of  clear  indications  (Jn  13^ 
1 8-*  19^^'  ^^)  implies  that  the  Last  Supper  was  eaten 
before  the  time  of  the  regular  Passover,  and  that  the 
Lord  suffered  on  the  afternoon  of  Nisan  14,  about  the 
time  of  the  slaying  of  the  Paschal  lambs. 

We  are  thus  left  with  a  conflict  of  testimony ;  and 
the  question  is,  on  which  side  the  evidence  is  strongest. 
Now,  if  we  are  to  believe  a  very  competent  Jewish 
archaeologist.  Dr.  Chwolson,  the  Synoptists  begin  with 
an  error.  '  From  the  Mosaic  writings  down  to  the 
Book  of  Jubilees  (cap.  49),  Philo,  Josephus,  the  Pales- 
tinian Targum  ascribed  to  Jonathan  ben  Uziel,  the 
Mishnah,  the  Talmud,  the  Rabbinical  writings  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  indeed  down  to  the  present  day,  the  Jews 
have  always  understood  by  the  phrase  :rh  fWiii,  DV 
niaan  "the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread," 
only  the  15  th,  and  not  the  14th  '  (I)as  letzte  PassamaJil 
Christi  u.  der  Tag  seines  Todes,  p.  3  f.)  ;  so  that  it 
would  be  a  contradiction  in  terms  to  say  with  Mk  i4^^|| 
*  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,  when  they  sacri- 
ficed the  Passover.'  It  is,  however,  only  right  to  add 
that  Chwolson's  assertion  is  denied  by  another  very 
good  authority.  Dr.  Schiirer,  ThL,  1893,  col.  182. 
[Schiirer  does  not  directly  meet  the  statement  that 
where   the  feast  of  Unleavened   Bread   is  represented  as 


150  THE   MESSIANIC   CRISIS 

extending  over  eight  days,  the  days  intended  are 
Nisan    15-22,    not    14-21.*] 

Waiving  this  point,  however,  for  the  present,  we 
observe  (after  Chwolson,  but  cf.  Authorship  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  1872,  p,  206  f.  etc.)  that  the  Synoptists 
make  the  Sanhedrin  say  beforehand  that  they  will  not 
arrest  Jesus  'on  the  feast  day,'  and  then  actually  arrest 
Him  on  that  day ;  that  not  only  the  guards,  but  one 
of  the  disciples  (Mk  i4''"||)  carries  arms,  which  on  the 
feast  day  was  not  allowed ;  that  the  trial  was  also  held 
on  the  feast  day,  which  would  be  unlawful  (on  these 
points  see  Chwolson,  op.  cit.  p.  6  ff.)  ;  that  the  feast 
day  would  not  be  called  simply  '  Preparation ' ;  that 
the  phrase  'coming  from  the  field'  (Mk  i5*^||)  means 
properly  '  coming  from  work ' ;  that  Joseph  of  Arimathgea 
is  represented  as  buying  a  linen  cloth  (Mk  15^),  and 
the  women  as  preparing  spices  and  ointments  (Lk 
23'^),  all  of  which  would  be  contrary  to  law  and 
custom. 

It  follows  that  the  Synoptists  are  really  inconsistent 
with  themselves,  and  bear  unwilling  witness  to  the 
chronology  of  St.  John.  We  may  be  still  reluctant  to 
think  that  the  contradiction  is  final.  The  Synoptists, 
so  far  as  they  identify  the  Last  Supper  with  the  Pass- 
over, look  as  if  they  were  telling  the  truth.  It  is 
possible  that  there  may  be  some  way  of  reconciling  the 
two  accounts,  which  we  do  not  know  enough  of  the 
circumstances   to   specify. 

*  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  Gospel  of  Peter  agrees  with  the 
Johannean  rather  than  the  Synoptic  tradition,  placing  the  Cruci- 
fixion not  on,  but  before,  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread  (7rp6  /xiaj 
rOiv  dt^v/jLuv,  Ev.  Pet.  3). 


THE   LAST   EVENTS  151 

One  hypothesis,  which  the  writer  was  at  one  time 
tempted  to  entertain, — very  tentatively,  —  that  the 
'Passover'  which  lay  before  the  disciples  and  the 
Sanhedrin  was  not  the  Passover  proper,  but  the  eating 
of  the  Chdgigah  (so  Edersheim,  M'Clellan,  Nosgen), 
he  now  believes  to  be  untenable  (see  Expos.  1892,  i. 
17  ff.,  182  f.,  and  Wright,  Problems,  p.  173  ff-)-  ^^  is 
more  likely  that,  for  some  reason  or  other,  the  regular 
Passover  was  anticipated. 

Dr.  Chwolson,  writing  as  an  archaeologist,  and  a 
Jewish  archaeologist,  would  account  for  such  anticipation 
by  the  fact  that  in  the  year  of  the  Passion,  Nisan  15 
(not  14)  fell  upon  a  Sabbath.  But  it  must  be  confessed 
that  his  argument  seems  strained  (cf.  also  Schiirer  in 
ThLi  ut  sup.). 

Mr.  Wright  thinks  that  the  Synoptists  have  com- 
bined the  narrative  of  the  Last  Supper  with  that  of 
some  previous  Paschal  meal  partaken  of  by  our  Lord 
{Proble7ns,  p!  179  ff.).  But  even  if  this  hypothesis  held 
good,  it  would  hardly  meet  the  case ;  because  it  is  just 
the  details  of  the  Last  Supper,  belonging  to  it  qua 
Last  Supper  {e.g.  the  '  cup  of  blessing '),  which  remind 
us  of  the  Passover.  And,  in  any  case,  the  hypothesis 
deserts  the  documents  too  far  to  be  at  all  capable  of 
proof. 

As  the  question  at  present  stands  we  can  only 
acknowledge  our  ignorance.  [The  literature  will  have 
been  sufficiently  given  in  the  course  of  this  section ;  cf. 
esp.  Mr.  A.  Wright's  Some  New  Testament  Problems, 
London,   1898,  p.   147  ff.] 

§  61.  (iii.)    Tlie  Prophetic   Teaching  of  the  Last    Week. 


152  THE   MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

—  This,  too,  has  raised  difficulties  which  are  not  only 
apparent  but  real.  It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that 
no  less  than  six  distinct  kinds  of  prediction  are  ascribed 
to  our  Lord  during  this  week  or  in  the  period  preceding. 
There  is  (i)  the  prediction  of  His  own  death  and  resur- 
rection. There  is  (2)  the  prediction  of  the  siege  and 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  With  this  in  the  great 
passage  (Mk  13 1|)  is  directly  connected  (3)  the  predic- 
tion   of    the    end   of    the   world    and   the   last  judgment. 

(4)  The  discourses  in  Jn  clearly  predict  the  coming  of 
the     Paraclete     as     the    substitute    for     Christ     Himself. 

(5)  In  another  leading  passage  (Mk  g^)  a  phrase  is  used 
which  may  be  explained,  though  it  is  not  usually 
explained,  of  the  remarkable  spread  of  the  Christian 
Church  from  the  Day  of  Pentecost  onwards.  Lastly 
(6),  there  is  the  explanation  which  is  frequently  given 
of  the  '  Coming  of  the  Son  of  Man '  as  a  so-called 
*  historical  coming,'  a  coming  not  exhausted  by  a  single 
occasion,   but  repeated  in  the  great  events  of  history. 

The  first  three  of  these  classes  of  predictions  are,  in 
any  case,  authentic  and  certain.  To  the  believer  in  the 
genuineness  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  prophecy  of  the 
Paraclete  is  equally  certain,  and  there  is  much  which 
goes  to  confirm  it  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles  inde- 
pendently of  its  direct  attestation.  The  other  two 
forms  of  prediction  are  more  hypothetical.  They  have 
been  introduced  more  or  less  in  order  to  meet  the 
difficulties,  although  they  may  have  substantial  grounds 
of  their  own.  We  will  not  as  yet  beg  the  question 
either    way. 

The  great  difficulty  is  that  as  our  documents  stand 
the    second    and    third    predictions    are    intimately   con- 


THE   LAST   EVENTS  153 

nected  with  each  other,  and  in  at  least  one  other 
passage  it  would  seem  as  if  it  were  expressly  stated 
that  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  {i.e.  the  final 
Coming,  the  Coming  to  Judgment)  would  take  place 
within  the  hfetime  of  that  generation.  We  know  that 
it  has  not  so  taken  place,  and  the  great  question  is 
what  we  are  to  say  to  this.  Is  it  an  error  in  One  who 
has  never  been  convicted  of  error  in  anything  else? 
We  must  not  endeavour  to  explain  away  facts ;  but  we 
may  interrogate  them,  and  interrogate  them  somewhat 
strictly,  to  see  whether  they  are  facts  or  no. 

We  cannot  disguise  from  ourselves,  that,  whatever 
the  precise  language  used  by  our  Lord,  the  disciples 
would  be  exceedingly  prone  to  attribute  to  Him  the 
prediction  of  His  own  return  as  near  at  hand.  The 
connexion  of  the  Messiah  with  a  world-wide  judgment 
was  no  new  doctrine,  but  was  a  common  feature  in  the 
Jewish  apocalypses.  But  this  return  would  seem  to 
them,  as  applied  to  our  Lord,  the  necessary  complement 
of  the  life  of  humiliation  which  He  had  led  upon  earth. 
For  it  was  reserved  the  full  triumph  over  His  enemies 
which  so  far  must  have  seemed  very  imperfect.  Resur- 
rection and  Ascension  would  seem  to  be  only  foretastes 
of  the  great  coming  in  glory  on  the  clouds  of  heaven. 
They  were  steps,  but  only  steps,  towards  the  goal. 

We  might  have  been  sure,  even  if  we  had  not 
been  told,  that  the  disciples  would  naturally  fix  their 
thoughts  on  this  Second  Coming,  and  that  it  would  be  a 
natural  inference  for  them  to  suppose  that  it  was  near 
at  hand.  Instances  like  the  comparison  of  Mt  24^^  = 
Mk  13-*  =  Lk  21^  show  that  the  expectation  as  to  time 
was  not  fixed  but  variable. 


154  THE  MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

On  the  other  side,  no  doubt,  must  be  set  the  fact 
that  in  the  apostolic  circle  the  belief  in  the  nearness  of 
the  Second  Coming  was  almost  universal  (i  Th  4""^-, 
I  Co  i"^-  1 623,  2  Co  5^  Ro  13"-^-,  Ph  4^  i  P  4^ 
I  Jn  2^*,  Rev  i^  22^°  etc.).  The  obvious  conclusion  to 
draw  from  this  would  be  that  the  belief  had  a  common 
root  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  Himself. 

And  in  favour  of  that  conclusion  might  be  quoted  the 
language  of  i  Th  4^^,  though  it  may  be  questioned  how 
much  of  this  is  a  'word  of  the  Lord,'  and  how  much  the 
construction  put  upon  it  by  St.  Paul.  The  ease  with 
which  the  apostles  postponed  their  expectation  under 
the  teaching  of  events  would  tell  against  the  sup- 
position that  the  words  of  Christ  had  been  precise  on 
the  subject ;  and  when  we  come  to  look  into  the 
Gospels  there  are  many  hints  that  the  time  of  the 
Second  Coming  could  not  be  fixed  precisely  and  might 
be  distant  (Mt  24^"^  ||  25^"^^^-").  These  passages  are 
indeed  so  clear  that  they  may  be  fairly  said  to  neutralize 
those  which  are  quoted  on  the  other  side,  and  to 
heighten  the  probability  that  the  apparent  definiteness 
of  these  other  passages  is  due  to  the  disciples  rather 
than  to  the  Master. 

But  another  hypothesis  has  been  put  forward  to 
remove  the  difficulty.  It  has  been  supposed  that  the 
Coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  places  where  it  is 
spoken  of  as  near  at  hand  refers,  not  to  the  final 
coming,  but  to  another  kind  of  coming  in  the  great 
events  of  history.  The  prologue  of  St.  John's  Gospel 
appears  to  point  to  such  repeated  comings  (Jn  i^) ;  and 
if  any  event  deserves  the  name,  it  might  well  be 
given     to     the     Destruction     of    Jerusalem,    which    was 


THE  LAST  EVENTS  1 55 

certainly  one  of  the  turning-points  of  history,  and  had 
a  momentous  influence  upon  the  fortunes  of  Chris- 
tianity. There  is  no  doubt  that  our  Lord  directly 
predicted  this  catastrophe ;  and  it  might  well  seem  that 
the  passages  which  apparently  speak  of  the  final  com- 
ing as  near  were  due  to  a  confusion  in  the  minds 
of  the  disciples  between  the  two  events  regarded  as 
*  Comings.' 

It  is,  however,  a  question  whether  this  idea  of 
repeated  coming  can  be  made  good.  Most  recent 
writers  are  inclined  to  set  it  down  as  a  modernism 
(Schwartzkopff,  Weissagungen  Jesu  Christi,  etc.  p.  155 ; 
Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  i.  315).  It  is  also  very  doubt- 
ful whether  it  has  any  real  support  in  OT.  What 
the  prophets  looked  forward  to  was  *  the  day  of  the  Lord ' 
—  a  single  great  intervention  of  God  —  not  a  day  or 
succession  of  days. 

On  this  point  the  writer  is  glad  to  be  able  to  refer  to  a  note  which 
he  has  received  from  Dr.  Driver :  '  The  usual  expression  is  "  the  day 
of  Jehovah " :  in  Is  2^2^  however,  it  is  indef.  ("  for  there  is  a  day 
for,"  etc.,  or  "Jehovah  hath  a  day";  Zee  14^  has  also  "a  day"; 
Ezk  30-^  is  lit.  "  For  near  is  a  day,  and  near  is  a  day  for  Jehovah"; 
Is  348  "  For  there  is  a  day  of  vengeance  for  Jehovah  (or  "  Jehovah 
hath"),  a  year  of  recompense  for,"  etc.;  also  "his  days"  in  appar- 
ently the  same  sense,  Job  24I.  But  these  hardly  differ  except 
formally  from  the  usual  "  day  of  Jehovah."  I  do  not  think  that  a 
succession  of  judgments  is  represented  under  this  figure  —  except,  of 
course,  in  so  far  as  what  the  prophet  pictured  as  taking  place  in  a 
single  day  was  in  reality  effected  gradually.' 

Another  hypothesis,  however,  also  appears  deserving 
of  consideration.  The  strongest  of  all  the  passages 
which  would  make  our  Lord  expressly  predict  His  own 
Second  Coming  within  the  apostolic  age  itself  is  Mt  16^^ 
'Verily   I   say   unto   you,   There   be   some   of  them    that 


156  THE   MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

Stand  here  which  shall  in  no  wise  taste  of  death,  till 
they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  his  kingdom.'  But 
when  we  compare  this  with  the  parallels,  Mk  9^  = 
Lk  if  it  is  clear  that  the  words  Son  of  Man  are 
intrusive,  and  that  the  clause  really  runs,  '  till  they  see 
the  kingdom  of  God  come  with  power  *  {om.  *  with 
power,'  Luke).  It  is  not  the  'Son  of  Man  coming  in 
his  kingdom,'  but  the  *  kingdom '  itself  which  comes. 

What  is  meant  by  the  kingdom  here?  Is  it  not  a 
very  natural  interpretation  to  explain  it  of  that  great 
intervention  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  world,  that 
great  influx  of  Divine  powers  and  energies  which  dates 
from  Pentecost  ?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  natural  to 
equate  it  with  the  promise  of  the  Paraclete  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  where  it  is  implied  that  the  coming  of 
the  Paraclete  is  equivalent  to  the  coming  of  Christ 
Himself?  (Jn  i4^"«). 

The    teaching   of    the    Fourth    Gospel    respecting    the 

Paraclete    is     already    strongly    confirmed     by    the    part 

assigned   to   the    Holy   Spirit    by   St.    Paul ;    and    if    the 

explanation  just  suggested*  holds  good,  it  would  be  also 

confirmed  from  another  and  unexpected  quarter. 

There  was  at  one  time  a  strong  tendency  in  the  advanced  liberal 
camp  to  get  rid  entirely  of  the  apocalyptic  and  eschatological 
element  in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord.  The  chief  means  through 
which  this  is  done  has  been  the  supposed  discovery  that  in  the 
discourse  of  Mk  13II  there  is  incorporated  a  'Little  Apocalypse' 
of  Jewish  (Weizsacker)  or  Jewish-Christian  (Colani,  Pfleiderer, 
Weiffenbach)  origin,  usually  regarded  as  a 'fly-sheet'  composed  in 
A.D.  67-68  during  the  troubles  which  immediately  preceded  the 
siege    of  Jerusalem,  and  identilied  with  the  '  oracle '   which  led   to 

*  A  similar  view  is  taken  by  Haupt,  p.  133  f.,  and  Bruston  (Holtz- 
mann,  Neutest.  Theol.  i.  315  n.),  but  commended  itself  to  the  writer 
of  this  independently.     Cf.  also  Swete,  ad.  loc. 


THE   LAST   SUPPER  I  57 

the  flight  of  the  Christians  to  Pella  (Eus.  HE  III.  v.  3).  The  first 
to  hit  upon  this  idea  was  Colani  (^  Jesus  Christ  et  les  Croyances 
Messianiqiies  de  son  Temps,  ed,  2,  1864,  p.  201  ff.),  who  was 
followed  by  Weizsacker,  Ptieiderer,  and  on  an  elaborate  scale  by 
Weiffenbach,  Der  Wiederkunftsgedajike  Jesu,  Leipzig,  1873.  This 
last-named  work  is  usually  referred  to  as  having  established  the 
position.  In  the  final  form  of  the  theory  the  '  fly-sheet '  in  question 
is  supposed  to  consist  of  Mk  i37-9a||  14-20 y  24-27 1|  30-31 1|,  And  it  is  true 
that  these  verses  are  fairly  detachable  from  the  rest  and  make  a 
fairly  compact  whole. 

By  thus  eliminating  the  central  passage  on  which  the  eschato- 
logical  teaching  of  Jesus  seemed  to  rest,  it  became  not  very 
difficult  to  explain  away  that  teaching  altogether.  Weiffenbach 
did  so  by  the  hypothesis  that  the  critically  verified  allusions  to  the 
Second  Coming  of  the  Messiah  all  originally  referred  to  His 
Resurrection,  the  predictions  of  which  formed  the  genuine  nucleus 
out  of  which  the  rest  had  grown  through  misunderstanding  of  the 
words  of  Jesus  and  the  blending  with  them  of  current  apocalyptic 
doctrines.  By  this  expedient,  Weiffenbach,  whose  object  was  less 
radical  than  that  of  most  of  those  who  went  with  him,  escaped  some 
real  difficulties ;  but  just  in  this  it  may  be  doubted  whether  he  has 
found  any  follower.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  critical  analysis  of 
Mk  13II  is  the  starting-point  of  the  whole  construction:  and  that 
has  not  perhaps  as  yet  been  brought  to  any  final  solution. 


§  62.  iv.  The  Last  Supper.  —  The  part  of  the  Last 
Supper  of  which  it  is  most  incumbent  upon  us  to  speak 
here  is  its  culmination  in  the  solemn  acts  and  words 
which  institute  the  second  of  the  two  great  Sacraments. 
Besides  the  debates  of  centuries  which  have  gathered 
round  this  subject,  a  number  of  questions  have  been 
raised  in  recent  years  which  require  discussion.  In 
particular,  new  hght  has  been  thrown  upon  the  text  of 
one  of  our  leading  authorities.  And  our  first  step  must 
be  to  determine  as  nearly  as  we  can  its  exact  bearing. 

§  63.  (i)  The  Text  of  Lk.  22  ^^*.  — The  importance  of 


158  THE  MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

this  section  is  such,  and  it  is  so  desirable  that  the 
evidence  should  be  given  with  completeness  and  pre- 
cision, that  we  may  be  forgiven  if  in  this  instance  we 
print  the  full  text  of  the  original  (after  Greek  RV), 
and  then  proceed  to  give  the  more  crucial  variants  in 
technical   fashion. 

The  evidence  of  the  leading  Latin  MSS  is  given  in  full ;  that  of 
the  two  oldest  forms  of  the  Syriac  Version  in  a  retranslation,  based 
for  the  Sinai  MS  on  Mrs,  Lewis  and  Merx,  and  for  the  Curetonian 
on  Baethgen.  For  the  Coptic  Version  the  new  critical  edition  is 
used  (Oxford,  1898). 

Lk.  22''*'^.  1*  KaJ  Sre  iyivero  i]  ibpa,  aviweae,  koX  ol  d.Trb<TTo\oL  avv 
ainQ,  1^  Kol  elire  wpbs  airovs,  ETn.6v/j,ia  iiredvix-rfaa  tovto  rb  Trdcrxa 
(payeiv  fied  vfiQv  irpb  toO  fie  iraOeiv"  ^^  \^yu  yap  v/mv,  6ti  oii  p,r]  (pdyw 
avrd,  ^ws  Stov  ir\7}pudy  iv  ttj  §a<ri\elq.  tov  Qeov,  ^'  koI  5e^6.p.evos 
TTorr/piov  eix'^P'-'^'^V^'^^  elire,  Adhere  tovto,  kuI  SiafiepiaaTe  eli  eavTovs' 
^^  X^yti)  yap  vpxv,  6ti  oii  /mt)  wiu  dirb  tov  vvv  dirb  tov  yevv/ifiaTos  rrjs 
d/MTT^Xov  ^ws  Stov  i]  ^a<n\ela  tov  Oeov  f\6y.  '^  Kal  Xa^wv  dpTov  evxO'Pi.O'- 
TT^cras  e/cXacre,  Kal  eBuKev  aCiToTs  Xiyuv,  Tovt6  ia-Ti  Tb  ffCjfxd  fiov  rb  vir^p 
vp-dv  SiSSp^pov'  TOVTO  TTOietre  eh  ttjv  ip.T]v  dvdpvqa lv.  "^^  Kal  Tb  woT-qpLOv 
wcrai^rws  peTa  t6  Senrvricai.  Xiywv,  Tovto  Tb  iroTTjpiov  rj  Kaivi]  Siad'^KT)  iv 
tQ  aipuTi  pav,  Tb  vwip  vpQv  iKxvvbpxvov, 

Locum  integrum  habent  Codd.  Grcec.  et  Verss.  omn.,  Us  tan  turn 
testibus  exceptis  qui  infra  nominantur ;  item  Latt.  cfq  Vulg. ; 
agnoscunt,  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  iv.  40;  Eus.  Can.;  Bas.  qucB 
feruntur  Ethica  ;  Cyril.  Alex.  Comm.  in  Luc. 

Om.  vv.161718  Cod.  Copt.  K  (^Catena  Curzoniana,  excerpto  ut 
videtur   Tito  [Bostrensi']. 

Om.  w.i''-  ^  Lect.  32,  Pesh.  codd. 

Om.  w.^^'"-  ^  Tb  virkp  vpwp  Sidbp.  —  iKxvv6pevov,  D  a  ff^  i  1. 

lisdem  omissis  transp.  vv.^^-  ^^  ita  ut  partem  v.^*  priore^n 
sequantur  b  e.  \}^  Dico  enim  vobis,  quia  ex  hoc  non  mandu- 
cabo  illud,  donee  ...  in  regno  dei.  ^^  Et,  accepto  pane, 
gratias  egit,  et  fregit,  et  dedit  illis,  ^^  dicens  :  Hoc  est  corpus 
meum.  Et  accepto  calice,  gratias  egit ;  et  dixit  :  Accipite  hoc 
et  dividite  inter  vos.  ^^  dico  enim  vobis,  quod  non  bibam 
de    generatione    hac    vitis    hujus,    donee    regnum    dei    veniat. 


THE   LAST   SUPPER  1 59 

*^  Verumtamen  ecce  manus,  etc.  b  ^^  Dico  enim  vobis  quia 
jam  non  manducabo  illud  doneque  adimplear  in  regno  di.  i^  et 
accepit  panem  et  gratias  egit  et  fregit  et  dedit  eis  ^'^  dicens  hoc 
est  corpus  meu.  Et  accepit  calice  et  gratias  egit  et  dixit 
accipite  vivite  inter  vos.  dico  enim  vobis  amodo  non  vivam 
(^sic)  amodo  de  potione  vitis  quoadusque  regnum  di  veniat 
verum  ecce  manus,  etc.     e.] 

I^em  transp.  yv}^-  ^^  omisso  (Cur.)  vel  partim  interjecto  (Sin.)  v.^" 
Syrr.  (Sin.-Cur.).  \}-^ .  .  .  ?ws  6tov  irXrjputdy  iv  t-q  /3o(r.  toO  SeoO. 
13  KoX  \aj3(jjp  dprov  eiix'ip'-O'T'fldas  e/cXaerei'  Koi  edwKev  avrocs  X^yu-v 
tovt6  ierri  rb  aw/id  fwv  rb  vfiQiv  didbfievov  (om.  Cur.)-  tovto  Trotetre 
els  T7]v  ifir}v  dvdfxv7]<Tiv.  ^^  /cat  (dxrai/Twi  fMerd  rb  benri'rjffai  ins.  ex 
\?^  Sin.)  Sefd^iej/os  iroriipiov  {vel  t6  ttot.)  evx<i'pi-<^T'l)aa.%  e/Tre- 
Xd/Sere  rovro  dtafieplaare  eis  eavro^s  (tovt6  icrzL  rb  alfia  fiov  [•^J 
KaivT]  diadi^KTi  add.  Sin,).  \^7a>  {ins,  ydp  Sin.)  vjuv  6ti  dirb  tov 
vvv  oi  fiT)  irlu  dwb  tov  yevvqixaros  Todrov  t^s  dfiiriXov  (vel  om,?) 
^us  8tov  7]  /Sacr.  rod  deov  eX^rj,] 

To  the  textual  critic  these  phenomena  are  fairly  clear. 
The  omission  of  vv.  ^^"^^  (Daff^il)  belongs  to  the  oldest 
form  of  the  Western  text.  The  next  step  (be)  was  to 
transpose  the  order  of  vv.  ^^-  ^  and  ^^*,  so  as  to  make 
the  sequence  of  the  Bread  and  the  Cup  correspond  to 
that  in  the  other  authorities.  The  next  (Cur.)  was 
to  supplement  the  words  relating  to  the  Bread  from 
I  Co  11^*.  The  next  (Sin.)  was  to  supplement  in  like 
manner  the  part  relating  to  the  Cup  by  somewhat  free 
interpolations  partly  suggested  by  Matthew,  Mark,  but 
mainly  from  i  Co  ii'"'.  In  this  instance  Syr.-Sin. 
represents  a  later  stage  than  Syr.-Cur.,  though  it  is 
more  often  earlier.  The  omissions  of  w.  [^®]  "•  ^^  are 
probably  not  important. 

We  have  then  confronting  each  other  the  primitive 
form  of  the  Western  text,  which  is  shorter,  makes 
Luke   transpose  the  order  of   the   Bread  and  the  Cup, 


l6o  THE   MESSIANIC   CRISIS 

and  omits  all  mention  of  a  second  Cup,  and  the  great 
mass  of  Greek  MSS  and  other  authorities,  which  in- 
troduce a  second  Cup,  or  second  mention  of  the  Cup, 
and  fill  out  the  whole  mainly  from  St.  Paul.  We 
cannot  doubt  that  both  these  types  of  text  existed  early 
in  the  second  century.  Either  may  be  original.  And 
this  is  just  one  of  those  cases  where  internal  evidence  is 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  text  which  we  call  Western. 
The  temptation  to  expand  was  much  stronger  than  to 
contract ;  and  the  double  mention  of  the  Cup  raises  real 
difficulties  of  the  kind  which  suggest  interpolation. 

§64.  (2)  Relation  of  the  Texts  to  each  other.  —  The 
adoption  of  the  Western  text  of  Luke  greatly  dimin- 
ishes the  coincidences  between  St.  Luke  and  St.  Paul. 
Indeed  it  reduces  them  to  the  practically  equivalent 
(.vya.pi(TTriaa.%  for  euAoyT/cras  (in  reference  to  the  Bread ; 
Matthew,  Mark  use  it  of  the  Cup).  The  greatest  loss 
is  that  of  the  apparent  confirmation  by  St.  Luke  of  the 
command  to  repeat  the  rite  in  memory  of  its  Founder. 
It  may  be  doubted,  however,  whether  the  introduction 
of  this  into  the  text  of  Luke,  which  —  to  obtain  the 
circulation  it  had  —  must  have  taken  place  exceedingly 
early,  and  must  have  been  carried  out  at  the  head- 
quarters of  the  Church,  is  not  even  stronger  testimony 
to  the  current  practice  of  the  Church  than  that  of  a 
single  writer  could  be,  even  though  that  writer  was  an 
evangelist. 

As  to  the  main  lines  of  the  rite  all  the  authorities  are 
agreed.  All  note  the  taking  of  the  Bread,  the  blessing 
(or  *  giving  thanks '),  the  breaking,  the  words,  *  This 
is   my   Body.'      All    note    the    Cup,   which    both   in   the 


THE   LAST   SUPPER  l6l 

Synoptic  (Matthew,  Mark)  and  Pauline  tradition  is 
related  to  the  [new]  Covenant  inaugurated  by  the  shed- 
ding of  the  Blood  of  the  Messiah.  In  the  Synoptics 
(Matthew,  Mark,  Luke)  there  is  an  express  mention  of 
the  giving  of  the  Bread  to  the  disciples,  with  the  further 
command,  *  Take  '  (Matthew,  Mark),  '  eat '  (Matthew), 
and  a  like  communication  of  the  Cup  (Synoptics,  though 
with  some  difference  of  phrase).  And  whereas  St.  Paul 
emphasizes  the  redemptive  value  of  the  sacrificed  Body 
(to  virep  vfxCiv  lectio  vet'd),  Matthew,  Mark  do  the  same 
for  the  shedding  of  the  Blood  {to  -n-epl  [vTrep]  ttoXXwv 
iK)(yw6fji.€vov  Matthew,  Mark,  and  ets  a.<f>€atv  apxLpTiuiv 
Matthew).  St.  Paul  not  only  doubles  the  command  for 
repetition,  but  also  adds,  '  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  death 
till  he  come.' 

§  65.  (3)  Other  NT  Evidence.  —  We  thus  have  the 
institution  of  the  Sacrament  fully  set  before  us.  But 
if  we  look  at  one  of  the  documents  upon  which  we 
have  been  drawing,  the  first  in  order  of  writing,  though 
it  is  only  incidentally  historical,  i  Co  11,  we  find  there 
that  the  Sacrament  proper  is  associated  with  something 
else  —  the  common  meal  or  agape  (Jude  ^^,  2  P  2^^  var. 
lect^.  We  ask  ourselves  what  can  be  the  origin  of  this 
association  ?  It  can  hardly  go  back  to  the  original 
institution.  It  is  more  probable  that  the  association 
arose  out  of  the  state  of  Kotvwvta  described  in  Ac  2^-*^^^ 

Perhaps    it    goes    back    further    still,   at  least    to    the 
very   beginning   of  the   period.        For   one  of  the   char- 
acteristic    expressions     is     17     xXao-is     tou  apTov,     Kkav 
II 


1 62  THE  MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

apTov  (Ac  2*^-  *^),  of  which  Blass  says,  '  est  autem 
KXdv  Tov  aprov  sollemnis  designatio  cense  dominicse.' 
It  must,  however,  be  somewhat  wider  than  that,  for 
in  the  immediate  context  we  have  KXtovres  re  kut' 
oiKOv  aprov  fxtrfXafJ-fiavov  Tpocf)rj^,  k.t.X.,  where  rpo^r) 
would  seem  to  embrace  the  common  meal  as  well  as 
the   Eucharist. 

We  are  reminded  further  that  the  same  phrase  kXov 
{KaTaKkav)  aprov  is  repeatedly  used  of  a  solemn  act  of 
our  Lord  independently  of  the  Eucharist  (Mk  6*'  ||  8^  ||  ^^ 
Lk  24^).  And  we  gather  from  the  context  of  the  last 
passage  that  there  was  something  distinctive  in  this  par- 
ticular act  by  which  our  Lord  was  recognized  (Lk  24^). 
We  are  reminded  also  of  the  many  instances  in  which 
attention  is  specially  called  to  the  'blessing'  (cvXoyeiv 
or  tixapiareiv)  of  food  by  our  Lord.  They  are  the  same 
words  which  are  used  in  connection  with  the  sacramental 
Bread  and  the  sacramental  Cup. 

There  is  something  in  these  facts  which  is  not  quite 
fully  explained.  There  are  lacuna  in  our  knowledge 
which  we  would  fain  fill  up  if  we  could.  The  institution 
of  the  Eucharist  appears  to  have  connexions  both  back- 
wards and  forwards  —  backwards  with  other  meals  which 
our  Lord  ate  together  with  His  disciples,  forwards  with 
those  common  meals  which  very  early  came  into  existence 
in  the  Apostolic  Church.  But  the  exact  nature  and  method 
of  these  connexions  our  materials  are  not  sufficient  to  make 
clear  to  us. 

§  66.  (4)  Significance  of  the  Eucharist.  —  We  feel 
these  gaps  in  our  knowledge  when  we  pass  on  to 
consider   the   significance   of   the    Sacrament.       Certainly 


THE  LAST  SUPPER  1 63 

Harnack  was  not  wholly  wrong,  however  far  we  may 
think  him  from  being  wholly  right,  when  he  held  that 
the  primary  object  of  Christ's  blessing  was  the  meal  as 
such,  in  its  simplest  elements,  not  specifically  bread  and 
wine  (cf.  TUvii.  ii.  137). 

The  prominence  given  to  the  meal  and  to  the  natural  products 
of  the  earth  which  contribute  to  it,  finds  some  support  in  the  euchar- 
istic  prayers  of  the  Didache.  '  First,  as  regards  the  cup :  We  give 
thee  thanks,  O  our  Father,  for  the  holy  vine  of  thy  son  David  which 
thou  madest  known  unto  us  through  thy  Son  Jesus ;  thine  is  the 
glory  for  ever  and  ever.  Then  as  regards  the  broken  bread:  We 
give  thee  thanks,  O  our  Father,  for  the  life  and  knowledge  which 
thou  didst  make  known  to  us  through  thy  Son  Jesus  ;  thine  is  the 
glory  for  ever  and  ever.  As  this  broken  bread  was  scattered  upon 
the  mountains,  and  being  gathered  together  became  one,  so  may  thy 
Church  be  gathered  together  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  into  thy 
kingdom ;  for  thine  is  the  glory  and  the  power  through  Jesus  Christ, 
for  ever  and  ever.  .  .  .  Thou,  Almighty  Master,  didst  create  all 
things  for  thy  name's  sake,  and  didst  give  food  and  drink  unto  men 
for  enjoyment,  that  they  might  render  thanks  to  thee ;  but  didst 
bestow  upon  us  spiritual  food  and  drink  and  eternal  life  through  thy 
Son'  (Did,  ix.  2-4,  x.  3). 

It  would,  however,  be  doing  an  injustice  both  to  the 
ancient  and  to  the  modern  writer  if  we  supposed  that 
they  had  in  view  only  the  gifts  of  God  in  nature. 
Harnack  writes :  '  The  Lord  instituted  a  meal  in  com- 
memoration of  His  death,  or  rather  He  described  the 
food  of  the  body  as  His  Flesh  and  Blood,  i.e.  as  the 
food  of  the  soul  (through  the  forgiveness  of  sins),  when 
it  was  partaken  of  with  thanksgiving,  in  memory  of  His 
death'  {pp.  cit.  p.  139).  And  the  Didache  looks  beyond 
the  physical  eating  and  drinking  to  the  *  spiritual  food 
and  drink,'  and  to  the  '  eternal  life  '  bestowed  through 
the  Son;  and  when  it  speaks  of  the  'holy  vine  of 
David,'    there    is    at    least    an    allusion    to     the     Jewish 


164  THE   MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

doctrine  of  the  Messiah,  if  not  directly  to  the  Johannean 
allegory  of  the  Vine. 

We  thus  come  round  to  an  aspect  of  the  Supper 
which  has  been  emphasized  and  illustrated,  especially 
by  Spitta.  There  are  allusions  not  only  in  the  im- 
mediate context  of  the  words  of  institution  (Mk  i4"^||), 
but  also  elsewhere  (Lk  14'^  '  Blessed  is  he  that  shall 
eat  bread  in  the  kingdom  of  God';  cf.  Mt  8'^  2  2-*- 
25'")  to  the  language  in  use  among  the  Jews  respecting 
the  great  Messianic  banquet.  This  took  its  start  from 
the  teaching  of  the  Prophets  {e.g.  Is  25^),  and  has 
points  of  contact  with  prominent  passages  in  the 
Wisdom  literature.  Thus  in  Pr  9^  Wisdom  issues  her 
invitation,  '  Come,  eat  ye  of  my  bread,  and  drink  of  the 
wine  which  I  have  mingled ' ;  which  is  taken  up  in  Sir 
2^19-21  t  'phey  tiiat  eat  me  shall  yet  be  hungry,  and  they 
that  drink  me  shall  yet  be  thirsty.'  And  in  a  like 
connexion  the  idea  of  the  manna  is  applied  in  Wis 
jg20f.  'Xhou  gavest  thy  people  angels'  food  to  eat,  and 
bread  ready  for  their  use  didst  thou  provide  from  heaven 
without  their  toil.  .  .  .  For  thy  nature  (17  {iTroo-racns  crov) 
manifested  thy  sweetness  toward  thy  children.' 

We  are  clearly  upon  the  line  of  thought  which  links 
on  to  the  discourse  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum. 
Indeed  we  meet  here  with  the  same  phenomenon  that 
has  already  come  before  us  on  other  sides  of  our  Lord's 
teaching.  The  current  ideas  are  not  discarded,  but 
taken  up  on  to  a  higher  plane  and  filled  with  a  new 
content.  We  have  seen  that  Wisdom  was  regarded  as 
giving  herself  to  be  '  eaten '  {i.e.  spiritually  appropriated 
and  assimilated).  Philo  repeatedly  identifies  the  manna 
with    the    Logos    (Spitta    refers   to    ed.   Mangey,    i.    120, 


THE  LAST  SUPPER  1 65 

214,  484,  564).  Hence  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  that 
St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Trvev/AariKov  jSpwyuta  and  irvev- 
fxartKov  Tr6[xa,  the  miraculously-given  meat  and  drink 
which  nourished  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  being 
treated  as  typical  of  the  Christian  Sacrament.  In  i  Co 
10*  it  is  not  the  water  but  the  stricken  rock  as  the 
source  of  the  water,  which  St.  Paul  identifies  with 
Christ  Himself.  But  a  little  further  he  says  plainly, 
*  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  com- 
munion of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ? ' 
(}i>.  V.  ^®).  And  in  Jn  6^^^  our  Lord  is  made  to  describe 
Himself  as  the  'living  bread  which  came  down  out  of 
heaven,'  and  it  is  explained  that  the  bread  which  He 
will  give  is  His  flesh,  for  the  life  of  the  world. 

We  take  the  view  that  the  discourse  in  question  does 
not  relate  directly  to  the  Eucharist,  But  it  does  not 
do  so  only  because  it  expresses  the  larger  idea  of  which 
the  Eucharist  is  a  particular  concrete  embodiment,  the 
one  leading  embodiment  which  Christ  has  bequeathed 
to  His  Church.  As  there  is  a  communion  with  Him 
which  is  wider  than  —  though  it  culminates  in  —  that 
which  we  call  Kar  iioxrjv,  the  Holy  Communion,  so  is 
there  a  sense  in  which  He  is  the  Bread  from  heaven, 
which  is  wider  than  that  in  which  He  is  given  through 
the  sacramental  Bread,  but  it  is  that  bread  of  which  He 
said,   'This  is  my  Body,  which  is  for  you.' 

The  parallelism  between  Jn  6^^  and  i  Co  11-^  (cf.  Mk 
14^^11)  is  so  close  that  we  are  certainly  justified  in  inter- 
preting the  words  of  institution  in  the  manner  in  which 
the  Sacrament  itself  is  interpreted  by  both  St.  Paul  and 
St.  John. 


1 66  THE  MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

No  writer  has  brought  out  this  aspect  of  the  Supper 
as  signifying  primarily  the  spiritual  assimilation  of 
Christ  more  forcibly  than  Spitta.  But  when  he  goes 
on  to  maintain  that  the  Eucharist  has  no  relation  to 
His  death,  it  is  sheer  paradox,  which  can  be  maintained 
only  by  the   most  arbitrary  methods. 

The  assimilation  of  Christ  does  not  exhaust  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Sacrament.  If  we  take  the  words  of  institu- 
tion as  they  stand,  another  idea  is  even  more  prominent. 
We  have  seen  that  there  is  considerable  doubt  as  to  how 
far  the  Last  Supper  is  to  be  identified  with  the  Paschal 
meal.  St.  Paul  describes  the  Death  of  Christ  as  the 
Christian  Passover  (i  Co  5^),  and  not  only  he  but  other 
NT  writers  apply  to  that  Death  the  language  of  Sac- 
rifice. But  the  particular  sacrifice  with  which  our 
Lord's  own  words  most  directly  connect  it  is  the  sacri- 
fice, or  group  of  sacrifices,  which  inaugurated  the 
Covenant  (Ex  24^).  As  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
upon  the  altar  of  God  and  upon  the  people  ratified  the 
covenant  between  Israel  and  Israel's  God,  so  (it  was 
implied)  by  partaking  of  the  consecrated  symbol  of  the 
Blood  of  Christ  the  Christian  had  brought  home  to  him 
his  share  in  the  new  Covenant  —  a  covenant  which  had 
at  once  its  inestimable  privileges  and  its  obligations. 
It  was  the  means  of  admission  to  the  state  of  Divine 
favour,  and  it  bound  over  those  who  were  admitted  to 
that  favour  to  a  life  of  loyal  service.  Here,  too,  if  we 
want  a  comment  on  the  words  of  institution,  we  may 
seek  it  rightly  in  the  later  NT  writings.  For  words 
could  not  well  be  more  strongly  attested  than  those 
which  accompany  the  giving  of  the  bread  and  of  the 
cup,  and  together  they  converge  upon  a  root-idea  which 


THE   LAST   SUPPER  1 6/ 

is  expanded  most  directly  in  He  9^*^-*,  but  is  also  illus- 
trated by  Ro  s^"-  s^*'-  8^ff-,  Eph  i',  i  P  i^^  i  Jn  i^  2\ 
Rev.    i^. 

If  we  start  from  the  idea  of  the  Death  of  Christ  as  a 
Sacrifice,  then  it  lies  near  at  hand  to  conceive  of  the 
Sacrament  as  the  sacred  meal  which  follows  the  sac- 
rifice. In  this  there  would  be  combined  the  universal 
and  immemorial  significance  of  such  meals  as  an  act  of 
communion  at  once  with  the  Deity  worshipped  and  of  the 
worshippers  with  each  other.  This  double  communion, 
under  this  aspect  of  the  sacrificial  meal,  seems  clearly 
indicated  in  i  Co  lo^®*"-  ^^,  but  it  is  also  suggested  by 
the  words  of  institution,  taken  with  the  distribution  of 
the  elements  of  bread  and  wine,  and  the  stress  which  is 
laid  upon  the  general  participation  ('  Drink  ye  all,'  '  they 
all  drank '). 

§  67.  (5)  Critical  Theories.  —  A  common  feature  in 
recent  critical  theories  respecting  the  Last  Supper  is 
the  denial  that  the  command,  'This  do  in  remembrance 
of  me,'  formed  part  of  the  original  institution ;  or,  in 
other  words,  that  the  particular  circumstances  which 
marked  this  solemn  parting  meal  were  meant  to  be 
repeated  in  the  form  of  a  permanent  Sacrament,  This 
view  was  put  forward  about  the  same  time,  and,  it  is 
probable,  independently,  in  England  by  Dr.  P.  Gardner 
{The  Origin  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  London,  1893),  and  in 
Germany  by  Jiihcher  in  the  volume  of  essays  in  honour  of 
Weizsacker  {Theol.  Abhandl.  etc.,  Freiburg  i.  B.  1892), 
and  by  Spitta  {Zur  Gesch.  u.  Lit.  d.  Urchristentums, 
Gottingen,  1893).  The  English  writer  is  the  most 
thoroughgoing.       Assuming    the    correctness   of    the   WH 


1 68  THE   MESSIANIC   CRISIS 

text  of  Lk  22"-  ^,  St.  Paul  is  left  as  the  sole  authority 
for  the  express  command  of  repetition.  It  is  then 
argued  from  the  phrasing  of  i  Co  11^  'I  received  of  the 
Lord,'  that  the  whole  account  belongs  to  one  of  St. 
Paul's  ecstatic  revelations,  and  has  not  a  solid  historical 
foundation.  In  default  of  this  it  is  thought  that  the 
apostle  had  been  influenced  during  his  stay  in  Corinth 
by  the  near  proximity  of  the  Eleusinian  mysteries,  the 
central  point  in  which  '  appears  to  have  been  a  sacred 
repast  of  which  the  initiated  partook,  and  by  means  of 
which  they  had  communion  with  the  gods'  (p.  18). 

How  St.  Paul  could  confuse  such  subtle  external 
influences  with  a  revelation  '  from  the  Lord,'  and  how 
he  came  to  deliver  as  authoritative  instructions  to  the 
Corinthians  what  he  had  (upon  the  theory)  only  himself 
acquired  during  his  stay  at  Corinth,  are  only  incidental 
questions.  We  cannot  tell  precisely  how  St.  Paul 
received  his  knowledge  in  such  a  sense  that  he  could 
refer  it  to  the  Lord.  But  the  solemn  simplicity  of 
phrase  reads  like  history,  and,  so  far  as  other  authori- 
ties exist,  it  is  completely  verified.  In  any  case,  it  is 
incredible  that  a  usage  which  is  thus  treated  as  practi- 
cally the  invention  of  St.  Paul  could  have  spread  from  an 
outlying  Gentile  Church  over  the  whole  of  Christendom. 
We  cannot  doubt  that  not  only  the  Synoptic  version  of 
the  Supper,  but  its  repetition  as  a  Sacrament,  had  their 
origin  in  the  Mother  Church.  The  KXacri?  tov  aprov 
of  Ac  2*^-  *^  is  an  indication  of  this,  which  is  confirmed 
by  the  evidence  of  Ignatius,  Justin,  and  the  Didache. 
Spitta's  theory,  that  the  repeated  Sacrament  Avas  due, 
not  to  a  command  of  Christ  Himself,  but  to  the  spon- 
taneous  instinct   of   affectionate    recollection    among    His 


THE   LAST   SUPPER  1 69 

disciples,  is  more  possible,  but  still  gratuitous  and 
hypercritical.  We  may  not  allege  the  witness  of  St. 
Luke  himself  in  confirmation  of  St.  Paul,  but,  as  we 
have  already  seen  (p.  160  sttp),  the  familiar  text  of  his 
Gospel  is  no  less  valid  evidence  of  the  common  belief 
and  practice. 

Of  the  critical  theories  respecting  the  origin  of  the 
Eucharist,  that  which  we  have  just  mentioned  is  the 
most  important.  Harnack's  contention,  that  it  was 
sometimes  administered  with  water  instead  of  wine, 
not  only  here  and  there  among  the  sects  but  in 
the  main  body  of  the  Church,  belongs  rather  to  the 
history  of  the  Early  Church  than  to  the  Life  of  our 
Lord.  It  turns,  however,  upon  a  somewhat  cavaher 
treatment  of  the  text  of  Justin,  and  has  met  with 
strong  opposition  and  (it  is  believed)  practically  no 
acceptance. 


Literature.  —  A  summary  may  be  given  of  the  more  recent 
special  literature  to  most  of  which  reference  has  been  made.  Lob- 
stein,  La  Doctrine  de  la  Cene,  Lausanne,  1889  ;  a  lucid  exposition 
dating  from  the  time  before  the  rise  of  the  newer  theories.  A  reason- 
able criticism  may  go  back  to  it  with  advantage.  Harnack,  TU  vii. 
ii.,  1891  (replies  by  Zahn,  Brot  u.  IVein,  Leipzig,  1892 ;  Jiilicher, 
as  below;  Headlam,  Class.  Rev.  1893,  p.  63);  Jiilicher  in  Theol. 
Abhandlungen  C.  von  IVeizs'dcker  gewidmet,  Freiburg  i.  B.  1892; 
Spitta,  Ziir  Gesch.  u.  Lit.  d.  Urchristentums,  Gottingen ;  P.  Gard- 
ner, The  Origin  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  London,  1893  (comp.  also  a 
criticism  by  Mr.  Wright,  NT  Problems,  p.  134  ff.);  Grafe  in  Z.  f. 
Theol.  u.  Kirche,  1895  (said  to  be  an  excellent  summary  of  the  con- 
troversy); Schultzen,  Das  Abendmahl  im  NT,  Gottingen,  1859  (also 
a  full  review  and  examination) ;  Schaefer,  Das  Herrenmahl,  Giitersloh, 
1897.  Bishop  Wordsworth's  Visitation  Addresses  on  The  Holy  Com- 
jnunion  (2nd  ed.  1892),  though  written  before  the  controversy  and 
dealing  largely  with  the  liturgical  aspect  of  the  question,  may  be 
specially  commended  to  English  readers. 


I/O  THE   MESSIANIC   CRISIS 

§  68.  V.  The  Resurrection. — For  our  present  pur- 
pose the  discussion  of  the  Resurrection  of  our  Lord 
will  resolve  itself  into  a  consideration  of  (i)  the  evidence 
attesting  the  fact ;  (2)  the  sequence  of  the  events,  or 
the  appearances  which  followed  the  Resurrection ;  (3) 
the  explanations  which  have  been  put  forward  to 
account  for  the  Resurrection  without  miracle;  (4)  its 
doctrinal   significance. 

§69.  (i)  T/ie  Attestation.  —  A  fact  so  stupendous  as 
the  Resurrection  needs  to  be  supported  by  strong 
evidence,  and  very  strong  evidence  both  as  regards 
quantity  and  quality  is  forthcoming ;  but  all  parts  of 
it  are  not  of  equal  value,  and  it  is  well  that  the 
authorities  should  be  compared  with  each  other  and 
critically    estimated. 

When  this  is  done  one  piece  of  evidence  drops  almost 
entirely  to  the  rear  —  the  concluding  verses  of  St.  Mark. 
This  is  not  invalidated  merely  by  the  fact  that  the  verses 
were  probably  not  part  of  the  original  Gospel.  Since 
Mr.  Conybeare's  discovery  of  the  Armenian  MS,  which 
appears  to  refer  them  to  the  '  presbyter  Ariston '  or 
'  Aristion,'  it  is  fair  to  attach  that  name  to  them, 
because,  although  the  authority  is  but  slender,  there  is 
nothing  at  all  to  compete  with  it;  and  the  Aristion 
mentioned  by  Eusebius  {^HE  iii.  39)  as  one  of  the 
*  elders '  consulted  by  Papias,  would  suit  the  conditions 
as  well  as  any  one  else  belonging  to  the  same  genera- 
tion (say  A.D.  100-125).  Such  an  authority  cannot  be 
wholly  without  weight ;  if  it  represented  a  distinct  line 
of  tradition,  its  weight  would  be  considerable.  But 
when    the    verses     Mk    16^-"    are     examined,    it    seems 


THE   RESURRECTION  17I 

pretty  clear  that  the  earlier  portion  of  them  is  really  a 
summary  of  the  narratives  in  the  extant  Gospels  of  St. 
Luke  and  St.  John,  and  therefore  adds  nothing  to  these 
Gospels  beyond  such  further  sanction  as  the  name  of 
Aristion  may  give  to  them.  It  is  proof  that  the  state- 
ments in  those  Gospels  were  accepted  as  satisfactory  by 
a  prominent  Church  teacher,  himself  a  depositary  of 
tradition,  in  the  region  where  St.  John  had  been  active. 
So  much  the  verses  contribute,  but  not  more. 

There  is  still  some  mystery  hanging  over  the  close  of 
the  Second  Gospel.  The  most  probable  view  appears 
to  be  that  its  original  conclusion  has  been  lost  —  it 
is  more  likely  than  not  —  by  some  purely  mechanical 
accident.  The  fragment  that  remains,  Mk  16^"®,  is 
insufficient  to  enable  us  to  trace  it  to  its  source.  If 
we  could  be  sure  that  it  was  complete,  we  should  have 
to  say  that  St.  Mark  was  not  here  drawing  upon  the 
Petrine  tradition,  because  that  tradition  could  not  have 
failed  to  speak  of  the  appearance  to  Peter  himself.  It 
is,  however,  possible  that  that  was  contained  in  the 
missing   portion. 

This  may  detract  somewhat  from  the  weight  of  the 
common  Synoptic  narrative,  which  is  here  disappoint- 
ingly meagre.  And  yet,  if  we  are  to  throw  the  absence 
of  any  mark  of  Petrine  origin  into  the  one  scale,  there 
is  a  little  bit  of  confirmatory  evidence  which  it  is  fair 
to  throw  into  the  other.  All  through  the  history  of 
the  Passion  St.  Luke  has  access  to  a  special  source, 
which  we  may  well  believe  to  have  been  oral,  but 
which  gave  him  some  items  of  good  information.  This 
information  relates  especially  to  the  court  of  Herod 
Antipas   (Lk  23^"^-),   and  it   is   natural   to  connect  it  with 


1/2  THE   MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

the  particular  mention  of  'Joanna  the  wife  of  Chuza, 
Herod's  steward,'  in  Lk  8^  Now  this  very  same 
Joanna  appears  again  in  St.  Luke's  account  of  the  visit 
of  the  women  to  the  sepulchre  (Lk  24^").  The  rest 
of  the  paragraph  appears  to  be  based  as  usual  upon 
St.  Mark.  But  the  renewed  mention  of  Joanna  is  an 
indication  of  the  special  source,  which  at  least  goes 
to  show  that  there  was  nothing  in  that  source  which 
conflicted  with  the  Marcan  document.  In  other  words, 
it  confirms  that  document  by  a  distinct  line  of  testimony 
(cf.  Lk  2f^-^). 

Is  it  not  possible  that  the  story  of  the  Walk 
to  Emmaus  has  a  like  origin?  The  name  Cleopas 
( =  Cleopatros)  is  just  such  as  we  should  expect  to 
find  in  the  same  Herodian  circle.  In  any  case,  the 
source  bears  other  marks  of  being  a  good  one.  It 
gives  a  graphic  picture  of  the  dejection  through  which 
the  disciples  passed ;  and  the  phrase  '  we  hoped  that 
it  was  he  which  should  redeem  Israel '  points  back  to 
a  time  before  the  dreams  of  national  triumph  had  been 
purified  of  the  grosser  element  in  them.  But  most 
striking  of  all  is  the  direct  confirmation  by  St.  Paul 
(i  Co  15^)  of  another  very  incidental  reference,  the 
appearance  to  Peter  (Lk  23^).  Not  only  does  St.  Paul 
confirm  the  fact,  but  he  puts  it  practically  in  the  same  place 
in  the  series. 

We  have,  then,  every  reason  to  think  both  that 
the  special  source  used  by  St.  Luke  was  excellent  in 
itself,  and  also  that  it  agreed  in  substance  with  the 
fragmentary  record  of  St.  Mark. 

If  St.  Luke  thus  reaches  a  hand  in  one  direction 
towards    St.    Mark,    he    does    so    in    another     direction 


THE   RESURRECTION  1 73 

towards  St.  John.  For  the  appearance  of  Lk  24^®'''- 
corresponds  to  that  of  Jn  20'^"'- ;  and  both  ahke  receive 
the  seal  of  authentication  from  St.  Paul  (i  Co  15^). 
We  may  not,  for  the  reason  given  above,  use  Mk  16^ 
in  ratification  of  Jn  20^^"^-.  We  note,  however,  that  the 
incident  of  St,  Thomas  is  a  striking  concrete  illustra- 
tion of  the  disbelief  on  which  so  many  of  our  authorities 
lay  stress.*  For  the  rest,  the  narrative  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  must  go  with  the  problem  as  to  that  Gospel 
generally.  It  has  found  a  vigorous  recent  defender  in 
Dr.  Loofs  {Die  Aiiferstehungsberichte  und  ihr  Wert, 
Leipzig,   1898). 

The  peculiar  element  in  Matthew  might  have  seemed 
to  possess  the  lowest  claim  to  acceptance,  were  it  not 
for  the  singular  convergence  of  proof  that  something 
like  the  injunction  of  Mt  28^^  must  have  been  given, 
or  most  probably  was  given,  by  our  Lord  Himself  (see 
p.  100  stip.;  also  p.  231  ff.).  We  believe  that  for  this 
paragraph,  too,  there   is  solid  foundation. 

And  yet  the  Resurrection  is  a  part  of  the  evangelical 
narrative  for  which  the  leading  witness  is,  after  all, 
not  the  Gospels,  but  St.  Paul  —  the  double  witness 
of  what  St.  Paul  says  and  what  he  implies.  It  is 
hardly  possible  for  testimony  to  be  stronger  than  this 
is.       In    the    same    precise    and    deliberate    manner    in 

*  This  trait  is  not  less  authentic  because  it  passed  over  from 
primary  documents  into  secondary  (such  as  the  Coptic  work  dis- 
covered by  Carl  Schmidt  and  commented  upon  by  Harnack  in  Theol. 
Studien  B.  Weiss  dargebrachf).  It  really  does  throw  into  relief, 
and  the  early  disciples  saw  that  it  threw  into  relief,  the  revulsion 
of  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  witnesses  to  the  Resurrection  and 
the  strength  of  their  conviction.  Otherwise  Harnack,  p.  8,  and 
Loofs,  p.  21. 


1/4  THE  MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

which  he  had  rehearsed  the  particulars  of  the  Last 
Supper,  St.  Paul  enumerates  one  by  one  the  leading 
appearances  of  the  Lord  after  the  Resurrection  :  (i)  to 
Peter,  (2)  to  the  Twelve  (as  a  body),  (3)  to  an  assembly 
of  more  than  five  hundred,  (4)  to  James,  (5)  to  all  the 
apostles  (i  Co   15"). 

We  have  spoken  of  these  as  the  '  leading '  appear- 
ances, because  St.  Paul  doubtless  has  in  view,  not  all 
who  under  any  circumstances  '  saw  the  Lord,'  but  those 
who  were  specially  chosen  and  commissioned  to  be  wit- 
nesses of  the  Resurrection  (Ac  i^  4^,  cf.  i  Co  15^^), 
i.e.  as  we  should  say,  to  assert  and  preach  it  publicly. 
For  this  reason  there  would  be  nothing  in  St.  Paul's 
list  to  exclude  such  an  appearance  as  that  to  Mary 
Magdalene  (Jn  20""^^).  It  may  have  been  on  this 
ground  —  because  the  two  disciples  involved  were  not 
otherwise  conspicuous  as  active  preachers  or  prominent 
leaders  —  that  St.  Paul  does  not  mention  the  scene  on 
the  road  to  Emmaus.  But  it  is  equally  possible  that 
the  story  of  this  had  not  reached  him. 

We  have  seen  by  what  a  striking  coincidence  this 
story  confirms,  from  a  wholly  independent  quarter,  the 
first  appearance  to  Peter.  The  next  in  order,  that  to 
the  Twelve,  may  well  be  identical  with  that  which  is 
more  exactly  described  in  Lk  24*'*''^-,  Jn  20^^^*.  The 
appearance  to  James  is  attested  by  another  line  of 
tradition  embodied  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews.     Beyond  this  identifications  are  uncertain. 

St.  Paul  contents  himself  with  a  bare  enumeration, 
not  from  lack  of  knowledge,  but  because  he  assumes 
knowledge  in  his  readers.  He  reminds  the  Corinthians 
of  what    he    had    delivered    unto    them    first   of    all    (cV 


THE   RESURRECTION  1/5 

TrpwTois,  i.e.  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  ministry 
among  them).  This  throws  back  the  date  of  the  evi- 
dence some  four  years  —  we  may  say  from  the  year  55 
to   51,  possibly  earHer,   but   at   the  latest   from   57  to  53. 

We  are  thus  brought  to  much  the  same  date  as  that 
of  another  piece  of  evidence,  not  so  detailed  as  that 
in  I  Cor.,  but  quite  as  explicit,  so  far  as  the  fact  of  the 
Resurrection  is  concerned,  the  evidence  of  the  first 
extant  NT  writing,  i  Th  i^"  4^*.  The  assured  tone 
of  these  passages  shows,  not  only  that  the  apostle  is 
speaking  from  the  very  strongest  personal  conviction, 
but  that  he  is  confident  of  carrying  his  readers  with 
him ;  we  may  go  further  and  say  that  the  belief  to 
which  he  gives  this  expression  was  unquestioned,  the 
universal  belief  of  Christians.  We  might  infer  this 
from  the  attitude  of  St.  Paul  in  regard  to  it.  Unfortu- 
nately, we  have  no  evidence  equally  early  from  the 
Church  of  Palestine  ;  but  as  soon  as  evidence  begins  to 
appear  it  is  all  to  the  same  effect.  The  early  chapters 
of  Acts  no  doubt  represent  a  Palestinian  tradition,  per- 
haps a  written  tradition ;  and  they  take  the  same  line 
as  St.  Paul  in  making  it  the  chief  function  of  the 
apostles  to  bear  witness  to  the  Resurrection  (Ac  i*-  ^^ 
etc.).     We  need  not  pursue  this  evidence  further. 

It  is  noticeable  that  although  there  were  doubts 
in  the  Apostolic  Age  on  the  subject  of  resurrection 
(i  Co  15^^,  2  Ti  2"*^),  it  is  not  as  to  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  but  as  to  that  of  Christians.  St.  Paul 
argues  on  the  assumption  that  Christ  was  really 
raised  as  from  a  premiss  common  to  himself  and  his 
opponents. 

And    it    is    no    less    noticeable    that     even    the    most 


176  THE   MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

rationalistic  of  Christian  sects,  those  (^-g.)  which  de- 
nied the  Virgin-Birth,  nevertheless  shared  the  belief 
in  the  Resurrection  (Irenaeus,  adv.  H(Br.  i.  xxvi.  i,  2 
[where  non  before  similiter  should  be  expunged] ; 
Hippolytus,  Ref.  Hcer.  vii.  35). 

§  70.  (2)  The  Sequefice  atid  Scene  of  the  Events.  —  It 
is  not  an  exaggeration  —  it  is  only  putting  in  words  the 
impression  left  by  the  facts  —  to  say  that  the  conviction 
among  Christians  that  Christ  was  really  raised,  dates 
from  the  very  morrow  of  the  Resurrection  itself.  It 
was  not  a  growth  spread  over  a  long  period  and  re- 
ceiving gradual  accretions  of  strength ;  but  it  sprang 
suddenly  into  existence,  and  it  swept  irresistibly  over 
the  whole  body  of  disciples.  Of  the  force  and  uni- 
versality of  the  belief  there  can  be  no  doubt,  but  when 
we  come  to  details  it  would  seem  that  from  the  first 
there  was  a  certain  amount  of  confusion,  which  was 
never  wholly  cleared  up.  We  have  records  of  a  number 
of  appearances,  not  all  contained  in  a  single  authority, 
but  scattered  over  several  distinct  authorities ;  and  it 
is  probable  enough  that  even  when  all  the  recorded 
appearances  are  put  together  they  would  not  exhaust 
all  those  that  were  experienced.  Different  traditions 
must  have  circulated  in  different  quarters,  and  speci- 
mens of  these  traditions  have  come  down  to  us  without 
being  digested  into  accordance  with  a  single  type.  The 
list  which  approaches  most  nearly  to  this  character, 
that  which  is  given  by  St.  Paul  in  i  Cor.,  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  not  so  much  a  digest  as  a  selection.  It 
is  a  selection  made  for  purposes  of  preaching,  and 
consisting  of    items   which    had    already   been    used    for 


THE   RESURRECTION  1/7 

this  purpose.  Compared  with  this,  a  story  hke  the 
Walk  to  Emmaus  is  such  as  might  have  come  out  of 
private  memoirs.  The  brief  record  in  St.  Mark  is  more 
central,  but  in  its  present  condition  it  is  too  mutilated 
to  satisfy  curiosity.  The  narrative  of  St.  John  is  no 
less  authoritative  than  that  of  St.  Paul,  but  it  is 
authority  of  a  rather  different  kind.  St.  Paul  writes 
as  the  active  practical  missionary,  who  seeks  to  com- 
municate the  fire  of  his  own  conviction  to  others. 
St.  John  also  wishes  to  spread  conviction  (Jn  20^^), 
but  he  does  so  by  bringing  forth  the  stores  of  long 
and  intense  recollections  from  his  own  breast.  He  too 
selects  what  had  taken  the  most  personal  hold  upon 
him,  and  does  not  try  to  cover  the  whole  ground. 

It  is  as  a  consequence  of  these  conditions  that  when 
we  come  to  look  into  the  narratives  of  the  Resurrection 
we  find  them  unassimilated  and  unharmonised.  It  is 
not  exactly  easy  to  fit  them  into  each  other.  The 
most  important  difference  is  as  to  the  chief  scene  of 
the  appearances.  Was  it  Jerusalem  and  the  neigh- 
bourhood, or  was  it  Galilee?  The  authorities  are 
divided.  St.  Paul  and  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  make  no  mention  of  locality.  Matthew  and 
Mark  throw  the  stress  upon  Galilee.  The  latter  Gospel 
does  not  indeed  (in  the  genuine  portion)  record  a 
Galilean  appearance,  but  the  women  are  bidden  to  say 
that  the  risen  Lord  would  meet  the  disciples  in  Galilee 
(Mk  16^.  This  is  in  fulfilment  of  a  promise  to  the 
same  effect  given  in  the  course  of  the  Last  Supper,  and 
recorded  in  the  same  two  Gospels  (Mk  14^®,  Mt  26^"). 
The  express  mention  of  prediction  and  fulfilment  in 
both    Gospels    not    only    proves    their    presence    in    the 


1/8  THE  MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

common  original,  but  also  shows  that  they  were  no 
accidental  feature  in  that  original,  but  an  essential  part 
of  the  whole  conception.  We  have  besides  a  Galilean 
appearance  described  in  Jn  21,  and  clearly  implied  at 
the  point  where  the  fragment  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter 
breaks  off  {^Ev.  Pet.  §  12  [60]). 

On  the  other  hand,  all  the  scenes  of  Jn  20  are  laid 
in  Jerusalem ;  and  Jerusalem  or  the  neighbourhood  is 
the  only  locality  recognised  in  Lk  24,  which  ends  with 
a  command  to  the  disciples  to  wait  in  the  city  for  the 
outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Lk  24^^). 

It  is  not  unnatural  that  the  critical  school  should 
regard  these  two  versions  as  alternatives,  one  of  which 
only  can  be  taken.  The  more  usual  course  has  been 
to  follow  that  of  Mark  and  Matthew,  with  or  without 
the  supposition  that  the  grave  was  really  found  empty 
(Loofs,  p.  18  ff.).  According  as  this  assumption  was 
made  or  not,  several  constructions  were  possible,  but 
all  equally  speculative. 

Dr.  Loofs  has,  however,  recently  argued  in  favour 
of  the  other  tradition  represented  by  Lk-Jn  20.  And 
he  has  certainly  succeeded  in  showing  that  there  is  as 
much  intrinsic  probability  on  this  side  as  on  the  other. 
But,  in  order  to  carry  out  this  theory,  he  is  obliged  to 
treat  Jn  21  as  having  a  different  origin  from  the  rest 
of  the  Gospel,  and  as  falHng  into  two  parts,  one  of 
which  (the  fishing  scene  =  Lk  5"^)  has  got  misplaced, 
not  having  originally  belonged  to  the  period  after 
the  Resurrection,  while  the  other  (the  dialogue  of 
Jn  21^^^  had  originally  nothing  to  connect  it  with 
Galilee.  These  are  strong  measures,  which,  however 
high    our    estimate     of    the     tradition,    Luke-John,    are 


THE   RESURRECTION  1 79 

obviously  not  open  to  one  who  thinks  that  the  identity 
of  style  between  Jn  21  and  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  is 
too  great  to  permit  of  their  separation  (the  argument 
in  Expos.  1892,  i.  380  ff.,  may  easily  be  extended 
to  ch.    21). 

The  only  remaining  course  is  to  combine  the  tradi- 
tions, much  as  they  seem  to  be  combined  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  and  the  Gospel  of  Peter.  We  must  not  dis- 
guise from  ourselves  the  difficulties  which  this  solution 
leaves.  The  most  serious  of  these  are  caused  by  the 
command  of  Lk  24^^,  and  the  contracted  space  within 
which  we  shall  have  to  compress  the  events  in  Galilee. 
We  have  only  forty  days  to  dispose  of,  in  all,  if  we 
accept  the  traditional  date  of  the  Ascension,  —  and  even 
if  we  regarded  this  as  a  round  number,  the  nearness  of 
the  Day  of  Pentecost  would  allow  us  very  little  more 
margin.  From  these  Forty  Days  we  should  have  to 
take  off  a  week  at  the  beginning  on  account  of  Jn  20-^. 
And  if,  as  we  reasonably  may,  we  suppose  that  there 
has  been  some  foreshortetiing  in  Lk  24^^^^,  and  that 
two  or  three  distinct  occasions  are  treated  as  if  they 
were  continuous,  we  should  still,  to  find  a  place  for  the 
injunction  to  wait  in  Jerusalem,  have  to  cut  off  another 
like  period  at  the  end.  That  would  leave  not  much 
more  than  three  weeks  for  the  retirement  to  Galilee 
and  return  to  Jerusalem  —  a  length  of  time  which 
cannot  be  pronounced  wholly  insufficient,  but  which 
does  not  fit  in  quite  naturally  with  the  way  in  which 
the  apostles  are  described  in  Jn  21^  as  returning  to 
their  ordinary  occupations.  These  difficulties  would  be 
avoided  if  we  could  regard  the  Day  of  Pentecost  as  that 
of   the    following    year;    but  any    such  hypothesis  would 


l80  THE   MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

conflict  directly  with  Ac   i",    and  the  interval  implied  in 
Jn  2i"  *  is  also  a  short  one. 

Whichever  way  we  turn  difificulties  meet  us,  which 
the  documents  to  which  we  have  access  do  not  enable 
us  to  remove.  We  have  said  enough  as  to  the  nature 
of  these  documents,  and  of  the  lines  of  tradition  to 
which  they  give  expression.  It  is  not  what  we  could 
wish,  but  what  we  have.  And  no  difficulty  of  weaving 
the  separate  incidents  into  an  orderly  well-compacted 
narrative  can  impugn  the  unanimous  beUef  of  the 
Church  which  lies  behind  them,  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  rose  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day  and  appeared 
to  the  disciples. 

§  71.  (3)  Atte7npted  Expla7iations.  —  This  universal 
belief  is  the  root  fact  which  has  to  be  accounted  for. 
It  would  be  the  natural  product  of  a  real  event  such 
as  the  Epistles  assume  and  the  Gospels  describe.  But 
what  if  the  event  were  not  real  ?  In  that  case  the 
widely  held  and  deeply  planted  belief  in  it  must  needs 
constitute  a  very  serious  problem. 

In  the  last  century  a  succession  of  efforts  was 
made  to  account  for  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection 
without  accepting  it  as  a  fact.  Many  of  the  hypo- 
theses put  forward  with  this  object  may  be  regarded 
as    practically    obsolete    and    abandoned.      No    one    now 

*  The  numbering  of  this  Galilean  appearance  as  the  '  third ' 
might  seem  to  be  at  variance  with  St.  Paul's  list  in  i  Co  15  ;  but 
it  is  clear  that  the  appearances  which  St.  John  enumerates  were 
those  to  the  body  of  '  the  disciples '  {i.e.  primarily,  to  a  group 
including  the  apostles).  He  himself  does  not  count  that  to  Mary 
Magdalene  ;  nor  would  he  have  counted  those  to  St.  Peter  or  the 
Emmaus  travellers. 


THE   RESURRECTION  l8l 

believes  that  the  supposed  death  was  really  only  a  swoon, 
and  that  the  body  laid  in  the  tomb  afterwards  revived, 
and  was  seen  more  than  once  by  the  disciples  (on  this 
see  a  trenchant  sentence  by  Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  1863, 
p.  298,  end  of  paragraph).  Equally  inadmissible  is  the 
hypothesis  of  fraud  —  that  the  body  was  really  taken 
away  by  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  or  Nicodemus,  and  that 
the  rumour  was  allowed  to  grow  that  Jesus  was  risen. 
The  lingering  trace  of  this  which  survives  in  Renan, 
Les  Apotres,  ed.  13,  p.  16  (' ceux  qui  savaient  le  secret 
de  la  disposition  du  corps '),  is  thrown  in  quite  by  the 
way  as  a  subordinate  detail. 

More  persistent  is  the  theory  of  '  visions.'  This  has 
been  presented  in  different  forms,  assigning  the  leading 
part  now  to  one  and  now  to  another  of  the  disciples. 
Renan,  who  goes  his  own  way  among  critics,  sees  in 
this  part  of  the  narrative  a  marked  superiority  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  {Les  Apdtres,  p.  9).  In  accordance 
with  it  he  refers  the  beginning  of  the  series  to  Mary 
Magdalene  (cf.  Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  1863,  p.  309). 
A  woman  out  of  whom  had  been  cast  '  seven  devils ' 
might  well,  he  thinks,  have  been  thrown  into  a  state  of 
nervous  tension  and  excitement  which  would  give  form 
and  substance  to  the  creations  of  fancy.  And  when 
once  the  report  had  got  abroad  that  the  Lord  had  been 
seen,  it  would  be  natural  for  others  to  suppose  that 
they  saw  Him.  Strauss  and  Pfleiderer  (Giff.  Led.  pp. 
112,  149)  start  rather  from  the  case  of  St.  Paul.  Both 
lay  stress  upon  the  fact  that  he  places  the  appearance 
to  himself  on  a  level  with  those  to  the  older  disciples. 
His  own  vision  they  would  agree  in  explaining  as  due 
to   a   species   of  epileptic   seizure,   and    the    others    they 


1 82  THE   MESSIANIC   CRISIS 

would   regard   as    equally   subjective,    though    led    up    to 
by  different  trains  of  psychological  preparation. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  some  of  the  best  attested 
details  of  the  Resurrection  interpose  difficulties.  To 
carry  through  a  consistent  theory  of  visions,  two 
conditions  are  necessary.  (a)  If  they  arose,  as  Strauss 
supposes,  from  affectionate  dwelling  upon  the  per- 
sonality of  Jesus,  combined  with  reflection  upon  certain 
passages  of  OT  (Ps  i6'",  Is  53^""),  it  follows,  almost 
of  necessity,  that  we  must  also  with  Strauss  throw  over 
the  tradition  of  the  '  third  day,'  and  regard  the  belief 
as  the  outcome  of  a  somewhat  prolonged  process  —  a 
process  spread  over  weeks  and  months  rather  than 
days,  (d)  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  must  discard  the 
tradition  as  to  the  beginning  of  the  appearances,  we 
must  equally  discard  that  as  to  their  end.  The  wave 
of  feverish  enthusiasm  to  which  on  this  hypothesis  they 
owed  their  origin,  certainly  would  not  have  subsided 
in  the  interval  between  Passover  and  Pentecost.  We 
note,  as  it  is,  an  ascending  scale  in  the  appearances  — 
they  occur  first  to  individuals  (Mary  Magdalene,  Peter, 
the  Emmaus  disciples),  then  to  the  Ten  and  the  Eleven, 
then  to  the  Five  Hundred.  We  can  see  how  one 
appearance  prepares  the  way  for  another.  St.  Peter 
(<?.^.)  must  have  been  present  at  three  or  four.  With 
this  increasing  weight  of  testimony,  and  increasing 
predisposition  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  we  should 
naturally  expect  that  the  appearance  to  the  Five 
Hundred  would  contain  within  itself  the  germs  of  an 
indefinite  series.  We  should  not  have  been  surprised 
if  the  whole  body  alike  of  Christians  and  of  half  Chris- 
tians  had   caught   the   contagion.      But    that    is   not   the 


THE   RESURRECTION  1 83 

case.  There  is  just  the  single  appearance  to  James ; 
and  then  —  the  vision  of  St.  Paul  standing  rather  by 
itself —  with  one  more  appearance  to  the  assembled 
apostles,  the  list  comes  to  what  seems  an  abrupt 
end. 

This  description  of  the  facts  rests  on  excellent  evi- 
dence. The  'third  day'  is  hardly  less  firmly  rooted  in 
the  tradition  of  the  Church  than  the  Resurrection  itself. 
We  have  it  not  only  in  the  speech  ascribed  to  St.  Peter 
(Ac  10*°),  but  in  the  central  testimony  of  St.  Paul,  and 
then  in  the  oldest  form  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  It  is 
strange  that  so  slight  a  detail  should  have  been  pre- 
served at  all,  and  still  stranger  that  it  should  hold  the 
place  it  does  in  the  standard  of  the  Church's  faith. 
We  must  needs  regard  it  as  original.  And  for  the 
circumscribed  area  of  the  appearances,  we  have  at 
once  the  positive  evidence  of  the  canonical  documents, 
and  a  remarkable  silence  on  the  part  of  the  extra- 
canonical. 

These  phenomena  are  difficult  to  reconcile  with  a 
theory  of  purely  subjective  visions.  An  honest  in- 
quirer like  Keim  felt  the  difficulty  so  strongly  that, 
while  regarding  the  appearances  as  essentially  of  the 
nature  of  visions,  he  held  them  to  be  not  merely  sub- 
jective, but  divinely  caused,  for  the  express  purpose  of 
creating  the  belief  in  which  they  issued. 

This  is  the  least  that  must  be  asserted.  A  belief 
that  has  had  such  incalculably  momentous  results  must 
have  had  an  adequate  cause.  No  apparition,  no  mere 
hallucination  of  the  senses  ever  yet  moved  the  world. 
But  we  may  doubt  whether  the  theory,  even  as  Keim 
presents  it,  is  adequate  or  really  called   for.      It  belongs 


1 84  THE   MESSIANIC   CRISIS 

to  the  process  of  so  trimming  down  the  elements  that 
we  call  supernatural  in  the  Gospel  narratives  as  to 
bring  them  within  the  limits  of  everyday  experience. 
But  that  process,  we  must  needs  think,  has  failed. 
The  facts  are  too  obstinate,  the  evidence  for  them  is 
too  strong ;  and  the  measures  which  we  apply  are  too 
narrow  and  bounded.  It  is  better  to  keep  substantially 
the  form  which  a  sound  tradition  has  handed  down  to 
us,  even  though  its  contents  in  some  degree  pass  our 
comprehension. 

§  72.  (4)  The  Permanent  Significance  of  the  Resur- 
rection.—  The  innermost  nature  of  the  Resurrection  is 
hidden  from  us.  And  if  we  ask  why  the  supreme  proof 
that  God  had  visited  His  people  took  this  particular 
form,  the  answer  we  can  give  is  but  partial.  Some 
things,  however,   seem  to  stand  out  clearly. 

{a)  In  the  first  place  it  is  obvious  that  the  idea  of  a 
resurrection  was  present  to  men's  minds.  Herod 
thought  that  the  works  of  Jesus  were  works  of  the 
Baptist  restored  to  life  (Mk  6"-^''||).  Men  were  quite 
prepared  to  see  Elijah  or  some  other  of  the  ancient 
prophets  reappear  upon  the  scene  (Mk  9"'^^||,  Jn  i-^). 
In  Palestine  and  among  the  circles  in  which  Christianity 
arose,  no  mark  of  special  divine  indwelling  seemed  at 
the  time  so  natural.  The  belief  had  not  been  allowed 
to  grow  up  without   a  reason. 

For  {b)  from  the  very  first  the  ideas  of  bodily  and 
spiritual  resurrection  were  closely  intertwined  together. 
Perhaps  the  oldest  passage  in  which  there  is  a  hint  of 
such  an  idea  is  the  vision  of  Ezekiel  (ch.  37)  ;  and  there 
the  revivification  of  the  body  is  the  symbol  of  a  spiritual 


THE  RESURRECTION  1 85 

revival.     This  intimate  connexion  of  bodily  and   spiritual 
is  never  lost  sight  of  in  Christianity. 

(c)  '  Die  to  live '  is  one  of  the  most  fundamental  of 
Christian  principles,  and  this  principle  is  embodied 
once  for  all  in  the  Resurrection.  If  the  one  side  was 
'  placarded '  before  the  eyes  of  the  world  (Gal  3^)  in  the 
Crucifixion,  the  Resurrection  was  a  no  less  signal 
manifestation  of  the  other.  There  is  a  double  strain 
of  inference  and  application. 

(d)  On  the  one  hand,  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  was 
the  pledge  and  earnest  of  physical  resurrection  and  the 
life  beyond  the  grave.  St,  Paul  founds  upon  it  the 
hope  of  immortality  (i  Th  4",  Ro  8=^,  i  Co  6'*  15^*-, 
2  Co  V*  etc.). 

(<f)  But  he  equally  founds  upon  it  the  most  earnest 
exhortations  to  holiness  of  life.  It  is  not  only  that 
this  follows  for  the  Christian  as  a  duty:  if  his  relation 
to  Christ  is  a  right  relation,  it  is  included  in  it  as  a 
necessity  (Ro  6^).  St.  Paul  can  hardly  think  of  the 
physical  Resurrection  apart  from  the  spiritual.  And 
there  is  a  very  similar  vein  in  the  teaching  of  St.  John 
(Jn  5^*,  I  Jn  3").  The  Resurrection  is  the  corner-stone 
of  Christian  mysticism. 

(/)  In  another  aspect,  as  a  divine  act,  the  crowning 
mark  of  divine  approval,  it  is  a  necessary  complement 
of  the  Crucifixion.  It  supplies  the  proof,  which  the 
world  might  desiderate,  that  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Cross 
was  accepted.  If  the  death  of  the  Cross  was  a  dying 
for  human  sin,  the  rising  again  from  the  tomb  was  the 
seal  of  forgiveness  and  justification  (Ro  4"^,  cf.  6'').  'St. 
Paul  saw  in  it  an  assurance  that  the  doors  of  the  divine 
mercy  were  thrown  open  wide ;  and  to  St.  Peter  in  like 


1 86  THE   MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

manner   it   was    through    it    that    mankind    was    begotten 
again  to  a  'lively  hope'  (i  P  i^). 

All  this  mass  of  biblical  teaching  hangs  together.  If 
the  Resurrection  was  a  reality  it  has  a  solid  nucleus, 
which  would  be  wanting  even  to  the  theory  of  objective 
visions.  The  economy  which  begins  with  a  physical 
Incarnation,  naturally  and  appropriately  ends  with  a 
physical  Resurrection.  Thus  much  we  can  see,  though 
we  may  feel  that  this  is  not  all. 

Literature.  —  Besides  the  recent  literature  mentioned  above 
(among  which  the  paper  by  Dr.  Loofs  deserves  rather  special  atten- 
tion), and  besides  the  treatment  of  the  subject  in  numerous  works 
on  the  Gospel  History  and  on  Apologetics,  it  is  well  to  remember 
two  monographs  in  English  —  Dr.  Westcott's  Gospel  of  the  Restirrec- 
tion  (first  pub.  in  1866),  and  the  late  Dr.  Milligan's  The  Resurrection 
of  our  Lord  (first  pub.  in  1881). 

§  73.  (vi.)  The  Ascension. — The  Resurrection  in 
itself  was  incomplete.  It  was  not  the  goal,  but  the 
way  to  the  goal.  The  goal  was  the  return  of  the  Son 
to  the  Father,  with  His  mission  accompUshed,  His 
work  done. 

§  74.  (i)  The  apostolic  writers  unanimously  repre- 
sent this  return  as  a  triumph.  The  keynote  is  struck 
in  the  speech  which  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  St.  Peter 
on   the   day  of  Pentecost*   (Ac    2^^^).      It   would   seem 

*  When  we  ask  how  these  early  discourses  were  transmitted  to 
the  writer  of  the  Acts,  there  is  a  natural  reluctance  to  use  them 
too  strictly  as  representing  the  exact  words  spoken.  And  yet,  taken 
as  a  whole,  they  fit  in  singularly  well  to  the  order  of  development 
and  the  thought  of  the  primitive  community,  which  has  an  ante- 
cedent verisimilitude  and  accords  well  with  indications  in  the  Pauline 
Epistles. 


THE  ASCENSION  1 8/ 

that  the  form  of  expression  which  the  conception 
assumed  was  influenced  largely  by  Ps  no',  a  passage 
to  which  attention  had  been  drawn  by  our  Lord  Him- 
self shortly  before  His  departure,  and  which  spontane- 
ously recurred  to  the  mind  as  soon  as  the  nature  of  His 
return  to  the  Father  had  declared  itself.  Along  with 
this  would  be  recalled  the  saying  with  which  our  Lord 
had  answered  the  challenge  of  the  high  priest  (Mk 
i4^'-||).  Psalm  and  saying  alike  represented  the  Messiah 
as  seated  '  at  the  right  hand  '  of  the  Most  High.  This 
phrase  appears  to  have  at  once  (in  the  forms  ek  Sc^lwv 
and  ev  Se^ia)  established  itself  in  the  language  of  the 
primitive  Church ;  it  occurs  repeatedly,  not  only  in  the 
Acts  (7^*'-)  and  in  the  PauHne  Epistles,  but  in  Hebrews, 
I  Peter,  and  Revelation ;  and,  like  the  detail  of  the  '  third 
day,'  it  occupies  a  fixed  place  in  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

The  speech  of  St.  Peter  culminates  in  the  declaration, 
'  Let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  assuredly,  that  God 
hath  made  him,  whom  ye  crucified,  both  Lord  and 
Christ '  (Ac  2^^®) ;  and  it  is  substantially  a  paraphrase 
of  this  when  in  a  famous  passage  St.  Paul,  after  speak- 
ing of  the  humiliation  of  the  Christ,  adds,  'Wherefore 
also  God  highly  exalted  him,  and  gave  unto  him  the 
name  which  is  above  every  name,  that  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,'  etc.  (Ph.  2'^).  The 
return  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  was  not  merely  the 
resumption  of  a  previous  state  of  glory  (Jn  6^^  if  etc.), 
it  was  the  resumption  of  it  with  the  added  approval  and 
recognition  which  His  obedience  unto  death  had  called 
forth.  We  speak  of  these  things  Kara  avdpoyrrov;  or 
rather,  we  are  content  to  echo  in  regard  to  them  the 
language    of    the    apostles    and    of    the    first    Christians, 


1 88  THE  MESSIANIC  CRISIS 

who     themselves     spoke     Kara     avOpw-n-ov.      The     reality 
lies   behind   the  veil. 

§  75.  (2)  How  did  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  enter  upon 
this  state  of  exaltation?  Now  that  we  have  before 
us  corrected  texts  of  tlie  Gospels,  it  would  seem  to  be 
probable  that  they  did  not  give  an  answer  to  this 
question.  The  answer  was  reserved  for  the  second 
volume  which  St.  Luke  addressed  to  Theophilus ;  it 
forms  the  opening  section  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

Mk  16^^  belongs  to  the  Appendix  to  the  Gospel,  which  we  have 
seen  (p.  170  f.  sttp.)  to  have  been  probably  composed,  not  by  St. 
Mark  himself,  but  by  the  presbyter  Aristion  in  the  early  years  of  the 
second  century.     The  reading  of  Lk  24°!  stands  thus  — 

Ka2   ave<pip€TO  els  rhv  oiipavdv,  K°   ABCLXAAII,  etc.,   c  f  q  Vulg. 
Syrr.  (Pesh.-Harcl.-Hier.)  re//.,  Cyr.-Alex.  Aug.  1/2. 

Om.  K*D,  a  b  e  ffa  Syr  .-Sin.,  Aug.  1/2. 

This  means  that  the  omission  of  the  words  is  a  primitive  Western 
reading,  which  in  this  case  is  probably  right :  it  was  a  natural 
gloss  to  explain  the  parting  of  the  Lord  from  the  disciples  of  the 
Ascension;  there  was  no  similar  temptation  to  omit  the  words  if 
genuine. 

In  Ac  i^'^^  the  final  separation  is  described  as  an 
'  ascent  unto  heaven.'  When  the  last  instructions  had 
been  given,  the  disciples  saw  their  Lord  '  taken  up 
{iTTrjpdr]) ,  and  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their  sight.' 
The  over-arching  sky  is  a  standing  symbol  for  the 
abode  of  God ;  and  the  return  of  the  Son  to  the  Father 
was  naturally  represented  as  a  retreat  within  its  blue 
recess,  the  ethereal  home  of  light  and  glory.  It  is 
sometimes  necessary  that  a  symbol  should  be  acted  as 
well    as   written    or   spoken.      The    disciples   were    aware 


THE  ASCENSION  1 89 

of  a  vanishing,  and   they  knew  that   their  Lord  must  be 
where   His   Father   was. 

That  the  narrative  in  the  Acts  is  not  a  myth  seems 
proved  by  an  authentic  Uttle  touch  which  it  contains,  a 
veritable  reminiscence  of  what  we  may  be  sure  was 
their  real  attitude  at  the  moment,  though  it  soon  ceased 
to  be.  When  they  asked,  '  Lord,  dost  thou  at  this 
time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel?'  their  thoughts 
were  still  running  in  the  groove  of  the  old  Jewish 
expectation.  It  is  the  last  trace  of  them  that  we  have 
in  this  naive  form. 

§  76.  (3)  From  the  point  of  view  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, for  those  who  not  only  accept  the  facts  of  the  life 
of  Christ  but  the  construction  put  on  those  facts  by  the 
writers  of  NT,  the  main  stress  of  the  Ascension  lies 
upon  the  state  to  which  it  forms  the  entrance,  {a)  It  is 
the  guarantee  for  the  continued  existence  of  Him 
who  became  incarnate  for  our  sakes.  {i>)  It  not  only 
guarantees  His  continued  existence,  but  the  continued 
effect  of  His  work.  It  puts  the  seal  of  the  divine 
approval  upon  all  that  the  incarnation  accomplished. 
It  is  the  final  confirmation  of  the  lessons  of  the  Baptism 
and  of  the  Transfiguration,  'This  is  my  beloved  Son, 
in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.'  (r)  The  primitive  phrase 
'  at  the  right  hand  of  God '  describes  as  nearly  and  as 
simply  as  human  language  can  describe  the  double 
truth  that  Christ  still  is  and  that  His  work  still  is,  that 
the  Incarnation  was  no  transient  episode,  but  a  per- 
manent and  decisive  factor  in  the  dealing  of  God  with 
man.  {d)  This  truth  is  stated  in  other  words  in  the 
doctrine   of  the    High   Priesthood   of   Christ,   a   doctrine 


190  THE   MESSIANIC   CRISIS 

implicitly  contained  in  many  places  in  the  writings  of 
St.  Paul,  and  worked  out  with  great  clearness  and  ful- 
ness in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  There  is  something 
in  the  relation  of  the  exalted  Son  to  the  Father  and  to 
His  Church  corresponding  to  and  that  may  be  expressed 
in  terms  of  the  functions  of  the  earthly  high  priest  in 
relation  to  God  and  to  Israel.  The  great  High  Priest 
presents  the  prayers  of  His  people ;  He  intercedes  for 
them ;  He  *  pleads  '  or  *  presents '  His  own  sacrifice. 
Only,  when  we  use  this  language  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  we  are  not  speaking  of  '  specific  acts  done 
or  words  spoken  by  Christ  in  His  glory.  His  glorified 
presence  is  an  eternal  presentation ;  he  pleads  by  what 
He  is  '  (Moberly,  Ministerial  Priesthood,    p.  246   n.). 

Literature.  —  Dr.  Milligan  left  a  volume  on  the  Ascension  as 
a  pendant  to  that  on  the  Resurrection  {Baird  Lectures  for  1891), 
which  is  the  most  comprehensive  treatment  of  the  subject  in 
English. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

SUPPLEMENTAL  MATTER:    THE   NATIVITY 
AND   INFANCY. 

§  77.  Throughout  His  public  ministry  Jesus  passed 
for  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  two  peasants  of 
Nazareth.  Some  of  those  who  were  present  at  the  long 
discourse  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum  expressed 
their  astonishment  at  the  high  pretensions  which  it 
seemed  to  contain,  by  asking,  '  Is  not  this  Jesus,  the 
son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we  know  ? '  (Jn 
6*;  cf.  i^^).  The  inhabitants  of  Nazareth  appear  to 
have  put  a  similar  question  when  He  came  and  preached 
there.  The  exact  words  are  somewhat  differently  trans- 
mitted. Mk  6^  has  (in  the  better  attested  text),  'Is 
not  this  the  carpenter?'  Mt  13^^  *Is  not  this  the 
carpenter's  son  ? '  Lk  4^  a  passage  which,  although 
divergent,  contains  reminiscences  of  the  same  original, 
has  still  more  directly,  'Is  not  this  Joseph's  son?'  In 
the  preliminary  chapters  the  same  evangelist  speaks 
repeatedly  of  '  his  parents '  (yovets,  Lk  2^-  •"•  *^).  And 
not  only  does  he  himself  resolve  this  into  'his  father 
and  his  mother '  (2^,  but  he  makes  the  mother  of  Jesus 
say,  'Thy  father  and  I  sought  thee  sorrowing'  (2^. 

191 


192  SUPPLEMENTAL   MATTER 

It  is  in  keeping  with  this  language  that  both  the 
First  and  the  Third  Gospels  place  in  their  forefront 
genealogies  of  Jesus,  which,  in  spite  of  many  attempts 
to  prove  the  contrary,  must  be  admitted  to  trace  His 
descent  through  Joseph  and  not  through  Mary. 

Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  same  two  Gospels, 
though  differing  widely  in  the  details  of  the  narrative, 
assert  unequivocally  that  Joseph  had  no  share  in  the 
parentage  of  Jesus,  and  that  the  place  of  a  human 
father  was  taken  by  the  direct  action  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  The  differences  show  that  the  two  traditions  are 
independent  of  each  other;  and  yet  both  converge 
upon  this  one  point.  They  agree  not  only  in  represent- 
ing Jesus  as  born  of  a  virgin,  but  also  in  representing 
this  fact  as  supernaturally  announced  beforehand,  —  in 
the   one   case  to  Joseph,  in  the   other   case   to   Mary. 

What  account  is  to  be  given  of  these  seeming  incon- 
sistencies? We  cannot  get  rid  of  them  by  assigning 
the  opposed  statements  to  different  sources.  In  St. 
Matthew  the  genealogy  which  ends  in  Joseph  is  followed 
immediately  by  the  narrative  of  the  Annunciation  and 
Virgin-Birth.  In  St.  Luke  the  successive  sections  of 
ch.  2,  which  begins  with  the  nativity  and  ends  with 
the  scene  of  the  boy  Jesus  in  the  Temple,  where  we 
have  seen  that  such  expressions  as  *  his  parents,'  *  his 
father  and  mother '  occur  so  freely,  are  linked  together 
by  the  recurrent  note,  '  Mary  kept  all  these  sayings, 
pondering  them  in  her  heart,'  '  his  mother  kept  all  these 
sayings  in  her  heart '  (Lk  2^^-  ^^ ;  cf.  also  the  argument 
which  Professor  Ramsay  skilfully  draws  from  i*- 
2^-  *^*),     And  when  we  turn  to  St.  John  we  cannot  but 

*  JVas  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem  ?  p.  87. 


THE  NATIVITY   AND   INFANCY  1 93 

remember  that  the  Gospel  which  records  so  frankly  the 
Jews'  question,  '  Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph, 
whose  father  and  mother  we  know  ? '  if  it  nowhere 
refers  directly  to  the  Virgin-Birth,  yet  goes  further 
than  any  other  Gospel  in  asserting  the  pre-existence  of 
the  Son  as  God  with  God. 

What  we  regard  as  inconsistent  will  clear  itself  up 
best  if  we  consider  the  order  of  events  and  the  way  in 
which  these  preliminary  stages  of  the  history  were 
gradually  brought  to  the  consciousness  of  the  Church. 

The  sources  from  which  the  knowledge  of  them  was 
derived  were,  without  doubt,  private.*  We  shall  con- 
sider presently  the  character  of  these  sources.  We 
know  more  about  that  of  which  use  was  made  by  St. 
Luke  than  of  that  used  by  St.  Matthew,  and  we  can 
rely  upon  it  as  a  historical  authority  with  greater  con- 
fidence. We  shall  see  that  it  is  ultimately  traceable 
to  the  Virgin  herself,  in  all  probability  through  the 
little  circle  of  women  who  were  for  some  time  in  her 
company. 

We  are  told  expressly  that  the  Virgin  Mary  '  kept  all 
these  sayings  (or  things)  in  her  heart.'  She,  if  any 
one,  might  well  say,  /jLva-Trjpiov  e/^ov  e/Aot.  It  was  only 
by   slow   degrees   in   the    intimacy   of    confidential    inter- 

*  '  Luke  gives,  from  knowledge  gained  within  the  family,  an 
account  of  facts  known  only  to  the  family,  and  in  part  to  the 
Mother  alone'  (Ramsay,  op.  cit.  p.  79).  Professor  Ramsay,  how- 
ever, seems  to  go  too  far  in  contrasting  Matthew  with  Luke 
when  he  says,  '  Matthew  gives  the  public  account,  that  which  was 
generally  known  during  the  Saviour's  life  and  after  His  death.' 
We  do  not  think  that  any  account  was  known  during  the  Saviour's 
life,  and  we  prefer  to  think  of  the  Matthsean  version  as  parallel  to 
rather  than  contrasted  with  the  Lucan. 

13 


194  SUPPLEMENTAL   MATTER 

course  that  she  allowed  her  secret  to  pass  beyond  her- 
self, and  to  become  known.  Even  if  committed  to 
writing  before  it  came  into  the  hands  of  St  Luke, 
it  probably  did  not  reach  any  wide  public  until  it  was 
embodied  in  his  Gospel.  The  place  which  the  Virgin- 
Birth  occupies  in  Ignatius  and  in  the  Creed  seems  to 
show  that  it  cannot  have  been  much  later  than  the 
middle  of  the  century  before  the  knowledge  of  it  made 
its  way  to  the  headquarters  of  Christianity.  But 
before  some  such  date  as  that  there  is  no  reason  to 
think  that  it  was  generally  known.  It  was  no  part  of 
our  Lord's  own  teaching.  The  neighbours  among 
whom  His  early  life  was  passed,  the  changing  crowds 
who  witnessed  His  miracles  or  gathered  round  Him 
to  hear  Him,  had  never  had  it  proclaimed  to  them. 
'Jesus  son  of  Joseph,  the  prophet  of  Nazareth,'  was 
the  common  name  by  which  He  was  known.  And  it  is 
a  great  presumption  of  the  historical  truth  of  the 
Gospels  that  they  so  simply  and  naturally  reflect  this 
language.  We  may  well  believe  that  the  language 
was  shared,  as  the  ignorance  which  caused  it  was 
shared,  even  by  the  Twelve  themselves.  It  would  be 
very  fitting  if  the  channel  through  which  these  sacred 
things  first  came  to  the  ears  of  the  Church  was  a  little 
group  of  women.* 

*  *  If  we  are  right  in  this  view  as  to  Luke's  authority,  and  as 
to  the  way  in  which  that  authority  reached  him,  viz.  by  oral 
communication,  it  appears  that  either  the  Virgin  was  still  living 
when  Luke  was  in  Palestine  during  the  years  57  and  58  ...  or 
Luke  had  conversed  with  some  one  very  intimate  with  her,  who 
knew  her  heart  and  could  give  him  what  was  almost  as  good  as 
first-hand  information.  Beyond  that  we  cannot  safely  go ;  but 
yet   one  may  venture  to  state    the    impression  —  though   it   may  be 


THE  NATIVITY  AND   INFANCY  195 

§  78.  i.  The  Sources  of  the  Narrative.  —  It  has  often 
been  observed  that  whereas  the  first  two  chapters  of 
St.  Matthew  appear  to  be  written  from  the  point  of 
view  of  Joseph,  the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Luke  are 
written  from  the  point  of  view  of  Mary.  In  Matthew 
the  Annunciation  is  made  to  Joseph ;  it  is  Joseph  who 
is  bidden  in  a  dream  not  to  fear  to  take  to  him  his 
wife;  Joseph  who  is  told  what  the  Son  whom  she  is  to 
bear  is  to  be  called.  It  is  Joseph,  again,  who  is  warned 
to  take  the  young  Child  and  His  mother  into  Egypt, 
and  who,  when  the  danger  is  past,  receives  the  com- 
mand to  return;  and  it  is  Joseph  also  whose  anxious 
care  is  the  cause  that  the  family  settle  in  Galilee  and 
not  in  Judaea.  On  the  other  hand,  when  we  turn  to 
St.  Luke  the  prominent  figures  at  first  are  the  two 
kinswomen,  Elisabeth,  the  mother  of  John  the  Baptist, 
and  Mary.     Mary  herself  receives   the   announcement  of 

generally  considered  fanciful  —  that  the  intermediary,  if  one 
existed,  is  more  likely  to  have  been  a  woman  than  a  man.  There 
is  a  womanly  spirit  in  the  whole  narrative,  which  seems  incon- 
sistent with  the  transmission  from  man  to  man,  and  which,  more- 
over, is  an  indication  of  Luke's  character ;  he  had  a  marked 
sympathy  with  women'  (Ramsay,  op.  at.  p.  88).  In  view  of  the 
close  resemblance  between  much  that  appears  in  the  text  and 
Professor  Ramsay's  admirable  chapter,  it  is  perhaps  right  to 
explain  that  this  had  not  been  read  at  the  time  when  the  text  was 
written,  and  that  it  represents  an  opinion  formed  long  ago.  The 
question  as  to  whether  the  source  was  written  or  oral  is  left  open, 
because  there  is  reason  to  think  that  St.  Luke  used  a  special 
(written)  source  which  may  have  been  connected  with  the  women 
mentioned  below,  and  through  them  with  the  Virgin  Mary.  The 
writer  could  not  speak  quite  so  confidently  as  Professor  Ramsay 
as  to  the  nearness  of  this  source  to  the  Virgin,  but  he  does  not 
think  that  it  could  be  more  than  two  or  three  degrees  removed 
from  her.  It  must  have  been  near  enough  to  retain  the  fine  touches 
which  Professor  Ramsay  so  well  brings  out. 


/     - 


196  SUPPLEMENTAL  MATTER 

the  holy  thing  that  is  to  be  born  of  her.  The  Magnificat 
is  her  song  of  thanksgiving.  She  treasures  in  her 
heart  the  sayings  of  the  shepherds  and  of  her  Divine 
Son.  The  aged  Simeon  points  his  prophecy  to  her, 
and  foretells  that  a  sword  should  pierce  through  her 
soul. 

In  regard  to  the  Matthaean  document  we  are  in  the 
dark.  The  curious  gravitation  of  statement  towards 
Joseph  has  a  reason;  but  beyond  this  there  is  not 
much  that  we  can  say.  It  would  not  follow  that  the 
immediate  source  of  the  narrative  was  very  near  his 
person.  In  the  case  of  St.  Luke  we  can  see  farther  down 
the  vista.  We  have  already  had  grounds  for  connect- 
ing the  source  from  which  he  draws  ultimately  with  the 
Mother  of  Jesus.  Through  what  channel  did  it  reach 
the  evangelist?  Probably  through  one  of  the  women 
mentioned  in  Lk  8^  24^";  and  as  Joanna  is  the  least 
known  of  the  group,  and  therefore  the  most  likely  to 
drop  out  for  any  one  not  personally  acquainted  with 
her,  perhaps  we  may  say,  by  preference,  through  her 
(cf.  p.  172  sup^.  We  learn  from  Jn  19^  (cf.  Ac  i") 
that  the  Mother  of  Jesus  was  thrown  into  contact  with 
this  group,  —  perhaps  not  for  any  great  length  of  time, 
but  yet  for  a  time  that  may  well  have  been  sufficiently 
long  for  the  purpose.  And  we  believe  that  thus  the 
secret  of  what  had  passed  came  to  be  disclosed  to  a 
sympathetic    ear. 

Such  an  inference,  if  sound,  would  invest  the  contents 
of  these  chapters  with  high  authority.  Without  enlarg- 
ing more  on  this,  we  may  perhaps  be  allowed  to  refer 
in  confirmation  to  what  has  been  already  said  as  to  the 
appropriateness   of    the    picture    given    of   the    kind    of 


THE  NATIVITY   AND   INFANCY  1 97 

circle  in  which  Christ  was  born,  and  in  which  His 
birth  was  most  spontaneously  greeted  (see  p.  22  ff.). 
It  was  just  the  Simeons  and  Annas,  the  Elisabeths  and 
Zachariahs,  who  were  the  natural  adherents  of  such  a 
Messiah  as  Jesus.  And  the  phrases  used  to  describe 
them  are  beautifully  appropriate  to  the  time  and 
circumstances,  'looking  for  the  consolation  of  Israel,' 
'  looking  for    the    redemption    of    Jerusalem '   (Lk   2^-  ^. 

The  elaborate  and  courageous  attempt  of  Resch  (  TC/  iv.  Heft  3, 
1897)  to  reconstruct,  even  to  the  point  of  restoring  the  Hebrew 
original,  a  Kindheits-evangeliiim,  which  shall  embrace  the  whole 
of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Luke  and  Matthew  with  some  extra- 
canonical  parallels,  is  on  the  face  of  it  a  paradox,  and,  although 
no  doubt  containing  useful  matter,  has  not  made  converts. 


§  79.  ii.  \The  Text  of  Mt  i^^— Within  recent  years 
certain  phenomena  have  come  to  light  in  the  text  of 
the  first  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  which  demand  con- 
sideration in  their  bearing  upon  this  part  of  our 
subject. 

The  peculiarities  of  the  Curetonian  Syriac,  the  (so-called) 
Ferrar  group,  and  some  MSS  of  the  Old  Latin,  had  been  known 
for  some  time,  but  in  themselves  they  did  not  seem  of  very  great 
importance.  A  new  and  somewhat  startling  element  was  intro- 
duced by  the  publication  of  the  Sinai-Syriac  in  1894.  More 
recently  still  a  further  authority  has  appeared,  which  contains  the 
eccentric  reading.  This  is  the  curious  dialogue  published  by  Mr. 
F.  C.  Conybeare  under  the  names  of  Timothy  and  Aquila  (Oxford, 
1898).  It  professes  to  be  a  public  debate  between  a  Christian 
and  a  Jew  held  in  the  time  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (a.d.  412-444), 
and  it  is  in  the  main  a  string  of  ieslimonia  commonly  adduced  in 
the  Jewish  controversy.  It  is  a  question  how  far  some  of  this 
material  comes  from  a  work  older  than  the  date  assigned.  The 
criticism  of  the  dialogue  has  been  acutely  treated  by  Mr.  Cony- 
beare,  but    the    subject    needs    further    examination.      We   will    set 


igS  SUPPLEMENTAL  MATTER 

forth    the    evidence    at    length,    and    then     make    some    remarks 
upon  it. 

Mt  l^®  'laKw^  S^  iydvmjffev  t6v  'lw<Trj4>  rhv  AvSpa  Maplas,  i^  ijs 
iyevvifidr)  'lijcroOi  6  XeySfitvoi  Xpi(TT6s,  Code/.  Grcec.  unc.  qui 
exstant  omn.  minusc.  quamplur.  Verss.  {incl.  fffs,  def.  1),  cf. 
Dial.  Tim.  et  Aq.  fol.  113  r°. 

'laKo'jS  5^  iyiv\rf\(Ti  rhv  'Ia;ir-^0,  t^  fiv7j(TT€v6eiffa  wapdivos  Mapiafj, 
i-/4vvr)(Tev  'lr](rovi>  rbv  \ey6fj.evos  Xpiffrdv,  346-826-828  {auctore 
K.  Lake,  def.  13-69);  cui  desponsata  virgo  (^otn.  q)  Maria 
genuit  Jesum  qui  dicitur  (vocatur  gj,  q),  Christus  a  gi,  q,  cf. 
Dial.  Tim.  et  Aq.  fol.  93  v°. 

Similiter,  cui  desponsata  virgo  Maria  genuit  (peperit  d)  Jesum 
Christum  (ow.  tov  Xeydp..,  Christum  Jesum  d)  d  k  Syr.-Cur. 

Jacob  autem  genuit  Joseph,  cui  desponsata  erat  virgo  Maria : 
virgo  autem  Maria  genuit  Jesum  b  (cf  c). 

'Ia/ca>^  iyivvTjffev  rbu  'luiTT]<p  rbv  dvbpa  Maplas,  e^  ■^s  iyevvri07]'lriffovi 
6  \ey6ixevos  Xptcrris  •  Kal  'Iwari(p  iyevvrjffkv  rbv  '\rjaovv  rbv  Xeyb/ie- 
vov  Xpicrrbv,  Dial.  Tim.  et  Aq.  fol.  93  r°. 

'Ia(cwj3  iy^vv.  rbv  'lucrrjep-  'Itijcrricp,  (f  ipLvrjcTTe^dr]  vapdivos  Mapidfi, 
iyivvricrev  '\t)(to\jv  rbv  Xeybixevov  Xpicrrbv,  Syr.-Sin. 

The  eccentric  readings  all  occur  within  the  range  of  the  so- 
called  Western  text,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  belong  to  a 
very  early  stage  in  the  history  of  that  text.  Two  opposite  ten- 
dencies appear  to  have  been  at  work,  which  are  most  conspicuously 
represented  in  ancient  forms  of  the  Syriac  Version,  though  the 
original  in  each  case  was  probably  Greek. 

On  the  one  hand  there  was  a  tendency  to  emphasize  the 
virginity  of  Mary,  and  to  remove  expressions  which  seemed  in 
any  way  to  conflict  with  this.  For  the  blunt  phrase,  'Joseph  her 
husband,'  the  Curetonian  Syriac  with  the  oldest  Latin  authorities 
substitutes,  '  Joseph  to  whom  was  espoused '  —  not  only  '  Mary,' 
but  'the  Virgin  Mary.'  A  little  lower  down  (with  Tatian's 
Diatessaron),  for  'Joseph  her  husband  being  a  just  man'  (6  avrip 
airrri'i  diKatos  &v)  it  reads  'Joseph  being  a  just  man'  (avrjp  BIk.  dSc). 
In  v.20  for  '  thy  wife '  it  has  '  thine  espoused.'  In  v.^*,  again  with 
Tatian,  it  has  some  such  softened  phrase  as  '  he  dwelt  chastely 
with  her,'  and  for  '  took  his  wife '  it  has  '  took  Mary ' ;  and  in  v.'^^ 
(but  here  in  agreement  with  t<BZ  al.)  it  has  simply  '  brought  forth 
a  son,'  —  not  '  her  firstborn  son.' 

In  some  of  these  readings,  or  parts  of  them,  the  Sinai-Syriac 
agrees,  but  along  with  them  it  has  others  which  seem  to  be  of  a 


THE  NATIVITY  AND   INFANCY  1 99 

directly  opposite  tendency.  The  most  prominent  is,  of  course, 
'Joseph  begat  Jesus,'  in  v.i'\  We  might  have  thought  that  this 
was  an  accident  due  to  the  influence  on  the  mind  of  the  scribe  of 
the  repeated  eyiw-qcyev  of  the  previous  verses  ;  but  in  v.^^  the  same 
MS  has  'bear  thee  a  son,'  and  in  v.'^^  'she  bore  him  a  son' ;  and  in 
Lk  2^  there  is  a  counter  change  to  that  of  the  Curetonian  in  \P 
('with  Mary  his  wife'  for  'Mary  his  espoused');  all  which  read- 
ings hang  together,  and  appear  to  be  distinctly  anti-ascetic.  And 
now  the  singular  reading  in  v.i^  has  found  a  coincidence  in  the 
conflate  text  of  one  of  the  quotations  in  the  Dialogue  of  Timothy 
and  Aquila. 

It  is  of  course  true  that  both  these  authorities  —  the  Sinai-Syriac 
and  the  Dialogue  —  are  very  far  from  thoroughgoing.  The  Syriac 
text  has  not  tampered  in  any  way  with  the  explicit  language  of 
yyis.  20.  and,  what  is  especially  strange  —  in  the  very  act  of  com- 
bining 'lu}(T7)(p  with  iyivvT)<Tev  it  inserts  a  large  fragment  of  the 
Curetonian  reading  (c^  i/J.vr](TT€^6r)  irapOivos  Mapidfi)  substituted  for 
rbv  8.v5pa  Maplas.  On  the  other  hand,  the  peculiar  reading  occurs 
in  one  only  out  of  three  quotations  in  the  dialogue,  and  there  in  the 
form  of  a  conflation  with  the  common  text.  But  is  it  the  case  that 
these  authorities  point  to  some  form  of  reading  older  than  any  of 
those  now  extant,  which  made  Joseph  the  father  of  Jesus  ? 
There  would  be  a  further  question,  whether,  supposing  that  such 
a  reading  existed,  it  formed  any  part  of  the  text  of  our  present 
Gospel  ?  ^ 

There  would  seem  to  be  three  main  possibiHties. 
(a)  The  genealogy  may  in  the  first  instance  have  had 
an  existence  independently  of  the  Gospel,  and  it  may 
have  been  incorporated  with  it  by  the  editor  of  the 
whole.  In  that  case  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  the 
genealogy  may  have  ended  'Iw(rr/<^  8e  iyevvrjacv  t6v 
'Irja-ovv.  Unless  it  were  composed  by  someone  very 
intimate  indeed  with  the  Holy  Family,  it  might  well 
reflect  the  current  state  of  popular  opinion  in  the  first 
half  of  the  apostolic  age.  (d)  The  reading  might  be  the 
result  of  textual  corruption.  There  would  always  be  a 
natural  tendency  in  the    minds  of   scribes   to    assimilate 


200  SUPPLEMENTAL  MATTER 

mechanically  the  last  links  in  the  genealogy  to  pre- 
ceding links.  A  further  confusion  might  easily  arise 
from  the  ambiguous  sense  of  the  word  yewav,  which 
was  used  of  the  mother  as  well  as  of  the  father  (cf.  Gal 
4-^).  If  we  suppose  that  the  original  text  ran,  'Iw(Tr)<f> 
Tov  dvSpa  Maptas  17  iyivvrjcrev  'Irjaovv  tov  Xeyo/xevov 
XpLCTTov,  that  would  perhaps  account  for  the  two 
divergent  lines  of  variants  better  than  any  other.  A 
reading  like  this  appears  to  lie  behind  the  Coptic  (Bo- 
hairic)  Version,  (r)  It  is  conceivable  that  the  reading 
(or  group  of  readings)  in  Syr.-Sin.  may  be  of  definitely 
Ebionite  origin.  That  which  we  call  '  heresy '  existed 
in  so  many  shades,  and  was  often  so  little  consistent 
with  itself,  that  it  would  be  no  decisive  argument 
against  this  hypothesis  that  the  sense  of  the  readings  is 
contradicted  by  the  immediate  context.  It  would  be 
enough  for  the  scribe  to  have  had  Ebionite  leanings, 
and  he  may  have  thought  of  natural  and  supernatural 
generation  as  not  mutually  exclusive.  We  can  only 
note  these  possibilities ;  the  data  do  not  allow  us  to 
decide   absolutely  between   them. 

Literature.  —  The  fullest  discussion  of  this  subject  took  place 
in  a  lengthy  correspondence  in  T/ie  Academy,  towards  the  end  of 
1894  and  beginning  of  1895. 

§  80.  iii.  The  Genealogies.  —  At  the  time  when  it 
was  thought  necessary  at  all  costs  to  bring  one  biblical 
statement  into  visible  harmony  with  another,  two  hypo- 
theses were  in  favour  for  reconciling  the  genealogy  of 
our  Lord  preserved  in  Mt  i"^  with  that  in  Lk  3-^^^. 
These  were  {a)  the  hypothesis  of  adoption  or  levirate 
marriage,   according  to  which   the   actual    descent   might 


THE  NATIVITY   AND   INFANCY  20I 

differ  at  several  points  from  the  legal  descent,  so  that 
there  might  be  two  equally  valid  genealogies  running 
side  by  side ;  and  (p)  the  hypothesis  that  the  one 
genealogy  might  be  that  of  Joseph,  as  the  reputed 
father  of  Jesus,  and  the  other  genealogy  (preferably  St. 
Luke's)  that  of  Mary.  A  certain  handle  seemed  to  be 
given  for  this  latter  supposition  by  the  tradition  which 
was  said  to  be  found  in  the  Talmud  (tr.  Chagig.  'j'j, 
col.  4,  Meyer-Weiss),  that  Mary  was  the  daughter  of 
Eh.  [This  statement  appears  to  be  founded  on  a 
mistake,  and  should  be  given  up;  see  G.  A.  Cooke  in 
Gore,  Dissertations,  p.  39  f]  It  was  felt,  however, 
that  this  view  could  only  be  maintained  by  straining  the 
text  of  the  Gospel;  and  it  is  now  generally  (though  not 
quite  universally)  agreed  that  both  genealogies  belong 
to  Joseph.  On  the  other  hand,  the  theory  of  levirate 
marriage  or  adoption,  though  no  doubt  a  possible  ex- 
planation, left  too  much  the  impression  of  being  coined 
to  meet  the  difficulty.  The  criticism  of  to-day  prefers 
to  leave  the  two  genealogies  side  by  side  as  independent 
\  attempts  to  supply  the  desiderated  proof  of  Davidic 
\  descent.  Were  they  the  work  of  our  present  evangelists, 
or  do  they  go  back  beyond  them  ?  Both  genealogies 
appear  to  have  in  common  a  characteristic  which  may 
point  to  opposite  conclusions  as  to  their  origin.  That 
in  the  First  Gospel  bears  upon  its  face  its  artificial 
structure.  The  evangehst  himself  points  out  (Mt  i") 
that  it  is  arranged  on  three  groups  of  fourteen  genera- 
tions, though  these  groups  are  obtained  by  certain 
deliberate  omissions.  That  would  be,  in  his  case,  con- 
sistent with  other  peculiarities  of  his  Gospel  :  he 
evidently     shared     the     Jewish     fondness     for     artificial 


202  SUPPLEMENTAL   MATTER 

arrangements  of  numbers  (Sir  John  Hawkins,  Horce 
Synopticce,  p.  131  ff.).  From  this  fact  we  might  infer 
that  the  stem  of  descent  had  been  drawn  up  by  himself 
from  the  OT  and  perhaps  some  local  tradition.  If  such 
tradition  came  to  him  in  writing,  the  list  might  still 
conceivably  have  ended  in  some  such  way  as  that  which 
is  found  in  the  Sinai-Syriac,  though  if  the  list  was  first 
committed  to  writing  in  the  Gospel  the  probabihty  that 
it  did  so  would  be  considerably  diminished. 

It  would  seem  that  a  like  artificial  arrangement  (77 
generations  =  7X11)  underlies  the  genealogy  in  Luke. 
But  as  this  is  not  in  the  manner  of  the  Third  Evan- 
gelist, and  as  he  does  not  appear  to  be  conscious  of 
this  feature  in  his  list,  it  would  be  more  probable  that 
he  found  it  ready  to  his  hand.  In  that  case  it  would 
be  natural  that  it  should  come  from  the  same  source  as 
chs.  I.  2,  which  would  invest  the  genealogy  with  the 
high  authority  of  those  chapters.  We  cannot  speak  too 
confidently,  but  the  conclusion  is  at  least  spontaneously 
suggested  by  the  facts. 

§  81.  iv.  The  Census  of  Quirinius.  —  Until  a  very 
short  time  ago  the  best  review  of  the  whole  question  of 
the  Census  of  Quirinius  (Lk  2^"^)  was  that  by  Schiirer 
in  NTZG  §  17,  Anhang  i  {HJP  i.  ii.  105  ff.).  This  was 
based  upon  a  survey  of  the  whole  previous  literature  of 
the  subject,  and  was  really  judicial,  if  somewhat  severely 
critical,  in  its  tone.  As  distinct  from  the  school  of 
Baur,  which  was  always  ready  to  sacrifice  the  Christian 
tradition  to  its  own  reconstruction  of  the  history.  Dr. 
Schiirer  is  an  excellent  representative  of  that  more 
cautious    method   of  inquiry  which   carefully  collects   the 


THE  NATIVITY  AND   INFANCY  203 

data  and  draws  its  conclusions  with  no  prepossession  in 
favour  of  the  biblical  writers  if  also  without  prejudice 
against  them.  In  the  present  instance  he  summed  up 
rather  adversely  to  the  statements  in  St.  I,uke ;  and  in 
the  state  of  historical  knowledge  at  the  time  when  he 
wrote  (1890?),  that  he  should  do  so  was  upon  his  prin- 
ciples not  surprising. 

According  to  St.  Luke,  our  Lord  was  born  at  Beth- 
lehem on  the  occasion  of  a  general  '  enrolment '  (dwo- 
ypa<l>ri)  ordered  by  the  Emperor  Augustus  and  carried 
out  in  Palestine  under  Quirinius  as  governor  of  Syria. 
The  date  was  fixed  as  being  before  the  death  of  Herod, 
which  took  place  in  B.C.  4 ;  and  it  was  explained  that 
Joseph  and  Mary,  as  belonging  to  the  lineage  of  David, 
had  gone  up  to  enter  their  names  at  Bethlehem,  David's 
city. 

There  were  several  points  in  this  statement  which 
seemed  to  invite  criticism,  (i.)  In  the  first  place,  there 
was  no  other  evidence  that  Augustus  ever  ordered  a 
general  census  of  the  empire,  although  there  was  good 
reason  to  think  that  he  took  pains  to  collect  statistics  in 
regard  to  it.  (ii.)  Even  if  he  had  ordered  such  a  census, 
it  seemed  doubtful  whether  it  would  be  carried  out  in  a 
kingdom  which  possessed  such  a  degree  of  independence 
as  Judaea.  And  (iii.)  if  it  had  been  conducted  in  the 
Roman  manner,  there  would  have  been  no  necessity  for 
Joseph  and  Mary  to  leave  their  usual  place  of  residence. 
Further,  (iv.)  while  it  was  allowed,  on  the  strength  of  a 
well-known  inscription,  that  Quirinius  probably  twice 
held  office  in  Syria,  yet,  as  it  was  known  that  Sentius 
Saturninus  was  governor  b.c.  9-7,  and  Quinctilius 
Varus  at    least   b.c.    7-4,   it  was    argued    that    Quirinius' 


204  SUPPLEMENTAL   MATTER 

first  term  of  office  could  not  be  before  B.C.  3-1,  i.e.  after 
the  death  of  Herod.  (v.)  As  there  was,  in  any  case,  a 
census  of  Judaea  conducted  by  Quirinius  after  its 
annexation  by  the  Romans  in  a.d.  6,  it  was  thought 
that  St.  Luke  had  a  confused  recollection  of  this,  and 
antedated  it  (in  the  Gospel,  though  not  in  Ac  5"')  to  the 
lifetime  of  Herod. 

The  chief  authority  for  the  census  of  A.D,  6  is  Josephus  ;  and  an 
eminent  German  scholar,  Dr.  Th.  Zahn,  put  forward  in  1893  the 
view  that  it  was  Josephus  who  was  at  fault  in  dating  from  this 
year  an  event  which  really  fell  in  B.C.  4-3  {Neue  Kirchlic/ie  Zeit- 
schrift,  pp.  633-654).  This  brought  the  data  more  nearly,  though 
still  not  entirely,  into  agreement  with  St.  Luke.  The  theory  need 
not,  however,  be  more  fully  considered  as  it  has  not  met  with 
acceptance,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  seeks  a  solution  of 
the  difficulties  in  the  wrong  direction. 

There  was  one  little  expression  which  might  have 
given  pause  to  the  critics  of  St.  Luke,  viz.  his  careful 
insertion  of  the  word  '  first '  ('  the  first  enrolment  made 
when  Q.  was  governor  of  Syria ').  It  might  have 
shown  that  he  was  in  possession  of  special  knowledge 
which  would  not  permit  him  to  confuse  the  earher 
census  with  that  of  a.d.  6.  And  yet  the  existence  of 
the  earlier  census  remained  without  confirmation,  until 
it  suddenly  received  it  from  a  quarter  which  might 
have  been  described  as  unexpected  if  experience  did  not 
show  that  there  is  hardly  anything  that  may  not  be 
found  there  —  the  rubbish  heaps  of  papyrus  fragments  in 
Egypt. 

Almost  at  the  same  time,  in  the  year  when  Dr.  Zahn 
made  his  ingenious  but  unsuccessful  attempt  (1893), 
three  scholars,  one  English  and  two  German,  made 
the     discovery     that     periodical     enrolments    (d7roypa<^at) 


THE  NATIVITY  AND   INFANCY  205 

were  held  in  Egypt  under  the  Roman  empire,  and  that 
they  came  round  in  a  fourteen-year  cycle.  The  proof 
of  this  was  at  first  produced  for  the  enrolments  of 
A.D.  90,  104,  118,  132,  and  onwards  ;  but  in  rapid 
succession  the  list  was  carried  back  to  a.d.  76,  62, 
and   20. 

This  gave  the  clue,  which  was  almost  at  once  seized, 
and  the  whole  problem  worked  out  afresh  in  masterly 
fashion  by  Prof.  W.  M.  Ramsay,  first  in  two  articles  in 
Exp.  1897,  and  then  in  his  volume,  Was  Christ  born 
at  Bethlehem  ?  A  Study  in  the  Credibility  of  St.  Luke 
(London,  1898).  It  was  not  too  much  to  say  that  every 
detail  is  absolutely  verified.  The  age  of  Augustus  as 
compared  with  that  which  precedes  and  with  that  which 
follows  is  strangely  obscure,  and  the  authorities  for  it 
defective.  But  considering  this,  the  sequence  of  argu- 
ment which  Prof.  Ramsay  unfolds  is  remarkably  clear 
and  attractive.  (i.)  He  shows  it  to  be  very  probable 
that  there  was  a  series  of  periodical  enrolments  initiated 
by  Augustus  at  the  time  when  he  first  received  the 
tribunician  power,  and  his  reign  formally  began  in 
B.C.  23  (this  is  the  official  date  usual  in  inscriptions, 
p.  140).  (ii.)  He  also  makes  it  probable  that  this  was 
part  of  a  deliberate  and  general  policy  —  that  the  census- 
takings  were  not  confined  to  Egypt,  but  extended  to 
other  parts  of  the  empire,  and  more  particularly  to 
Syria.  Here,  too,  there  was  a  tendency  to  periodic 
recurrence,  though  the  evidence  is  not,  and  is  not  likely 
to  be,  so  complete  as  in  the  case  of  Egypt,  (iii.)  He 
has  shown  that  Palestine  was  regarded  as  part  of  the 
'Roman  world,'  i.e.  of  the  empire.  Though  Herod  had 
the  liberty  of  a  rex  socius,   the  Roman   power  and   the 


206  SUPPLEMENTAL  MATTER 

emperor's  will  were  always  in  the  background ;  he  had 
to  see  that  the  whole  Jewish  people  took  an  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  emperor;  he  could  not  make  war 
without  being  called  to  account ;  he  could  not  determine 
his  own  successor  or  put  to  death  his  own  son  without 
an  appeal  to  Rome ;  in  a  moment  of  anger  Augustus 
threatened  that  whereas  he  had  hitherto  treated  him 
(Herod)  as  a  friend,  he  would  henceforth  treat  him  as  a 
subject  (Jos.  Ant  xvi.  ix.  3),  It  was  therefore  likely 
enough  that  Herod  would  wish,  if  he  was  not  positively 
ordered,  to  fall  in  with  the  imperial  policy  by  taking  a 
census  of  his  people,  as  another  subject  king  did  in 
Cilicia  in  a.d.  35.  (iv.)  But  although  Herod  held  a 
census  at  the  instance  of  Augustus,  it  would  be  in  keep- 
ing with  his  whole  character  and  conduct  to  temper  it 
to  Jewish  tastes  as  much  as  possible ;  and  he  would  do 
this  by  following  the  national  custom  of  numbering  the 
people  by  their  tribes  and  families.  This  was  the  broad 
distinction  between  this  enrolment  of  Herod's  and  the 
subsequent  census  of  a.d.  6  or  7.  The  latter  was 
carried  out  by  Roman  officials  and  in  the  Roman 
manner,  which  was  the  real  cause  of  the  offence  which 
it  gave,  and  of  the  armed  resistance  which  it  excited, 
(v.)  Some  uncertainty  still  hangs  over  the  mention  of 
Quirinius.  Mommsen  thought  that  he  was  the  acting 
legatus  of  Syria  in  b.c.  3-1.  Prof.  Ramsay  inclines  to 
the  view  that  he  held  an  extraordinary  command  by  the 
side  of  Varus  some  years  earlier,  as  Corbulo  did  by 
the  side  of  Ummidius  Quadratus,  and  Vespasian  by  the 
side  of  Mucianus.  Such  a  command  might  carry  with 
it  the  control  of  foreign  relations,  and  be  included 
under  the  title  riyefiwv. 


THE  NATIVITY   AND   INFANCY  207 

§  82.  The  Meanmg  of  the  Virgin-Birth.  —  It  is  but  a 
very  few  years  since  there  arose  in  Germany  (the  date 
was  1892)  a  rather  sharp  controversy  in  which  many 
leading  theologians  took  part  over  the  clause  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  *  Conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born 
of  the  Virgin  Mary.'  The  echoes  of  that  controversy 
reached  this  country,  and,  although  not  much  was  said 
in  public,  it  is  probable  that  some  impression  was  made 
upon  public  opinion.  This  impression  was  strengthened 
by  the  publication  soon  afterwards  of  the  Sinai-Syriac 
with  its  pecuUar  reading,  which  was  not  unnaturally 
caught  at  as  representing  a  more  ancient  and  truer  text 
than  that  to  which  we  are  accustomed.  But  if  what 
has  been  written  in  the  preceding  sections  has  been 
followed,  it  will  have  been  seen  that  for  some  time 
afterwards  there  was  a  certain  reaction.  The  eccentric 
reading  has  found  its  level.  As  it  stands,  it  cannot 
possibly  be  original ;  and  however  it  arose,  it  cannot 
really  affect  the  belief  of  the  Church,  as  it  introduces 
no  factor  which  had  not  been  already  allowed  for.  And 
at  the  same  time  the  historical  value  of  the  documents, 
especially  Lk  i.  2,  has  been  gradually  rising  in  the 
estimation  of  scholars,  until  the  climax  has  been  reached 
in  the  recent  treatise  of  Prof.  Ramsay.  Even  those 
who  desire  to  see  things  severely  as  they  are  must  feel 
that  the  opening  chapters  of  St.  Luke  are  full  of  small 
indications  of  authenticity,  that  they  are  really  not 
behind  the  rest  of  the  Gospel,  and  that  they  form  no 
exception  to  the  claim  made  at  the  outset  that  the  facts 
recorded  have  been  derived  from  *  eye-witnesses  and 
ministers  of  the  word.'  [The  most  recent  period  (1901- 
1904)  would  have  to  be  differently  characterized.] 


208  SUPPLEMENTAL   MATTER 

Along  with  this  process  there  has  been  growing  up 
a  better  and  fuller  philosophy  of  the  Incarnation.  This 
has  been  due  especially  to  some  of  the  contributors 
to  Lux  Miindi,  and  may  be  seen  in  Bishop  Gore's 
Bampton  Lectures  (1891)  and  Dissertations  (1895),  in  Dr. 
Moberly's  L21X  Mundi  essay,  and  in  Mr.  Illingworth's 
Bampton  Lectures  (1894)  and  Divine  Immatiejice  (1898). 

To  those  who  regard  primitive  ideas  as  compounded 
of  nothing  but  idle  imagination,  ignorance,  and  super- 
stition, the  evidence  in  folk-lore  of  stories  of  super- 
natural birth  (such  as  are  collected  in  Mr.  Sidney 
Hartland's  Legend  of  Perseus,  vol.  i.,  1884)  seems  to 
discredit  all  accounts  of  such  birth,  even  the  Christian. 
They  do  not  sufficiently  consider  the  entire  difference 
of  the  conditions  under  which  the  Christian  tradition 
was  promulgated  from  those  which  surrounded  the 
creations  of  mythopoeic  fancy.  The  Christian  tradition 
belongs  to  the  sphere,  not  of  myth  but  of  history.  It 
is  enshrined  in  documents  near  in  date  to  the  facts, 
and  in  which  the  line  of  connexion  between  the  record 
and  the  fact  is  still  traceable. 

But,  apart  from  this,  if  we  believe  that  the  course  of 
human  ideas,  however  mixed  in  their  character — as  all 
human  things  are  mixed — is  yet  part  of  a  single  de- 
velopment, and  that  development  presided  over  by  a 
Providence  which  at  once  imparts  to  it  unity  and  pre- 
scribes its  goal, — those  who  believe  this  may  well  see 
in  the  fantastic  outgrowth  of  myth  and  legend  some- 
thing not  wholly  undesigned  or  wholly  unconnected 
with  the  Great  Event  which  was  to  be,  but  rather  a 
dim  unconscious  preparation  for  that  Event,  a  groping 
towards    it    of    the     human    spirit,   a    prophetic    instinct 


THE  NATIVITY   AND   INFANCY  209 

gradually  moulding  the  forms  of  thought  in  which  it 
was    to   find    expression. 

And  if  we  ask  further  what  it  all  means,  —  why  the 
Son  of  Man  was  destined  to  have  this  exceptional  kind 
of  birth,  the  answer  is,  because  His  appearance  upon 
earth  —  His  Incarnation,  as  we  call  it  —  was  to  be  in  its 
innermost  nature  exceptional ;  He  was  to  live  and 
move  amongst  men,  and  was  to  be  made  in  all  points 
like  His  brethren,  with  the  one  difference  that  He  was 
to  be — unhke  them — without  sin.  But  how  was  a 
sinless  human  nature  possible  ?  To  speak  of  a  sinless 
human  nature  is  to  speak  of  something  essentially 
outside  the  continuity  of  the  species.  The  growth  of 
self-conscious  experience,  expressed  at  its  finest  and 
best  in  the  formulae  of  advancing  science,  has  empha- 
sized the  strength  of  heredity.  Each  generation  is 
bound  to  the  last  by  indissoluble  ties.  To  sever  the 
bond,  in  any  one  of  its  colligated  strands,  involves  a 
break  in  descent.  It  involves  the  introduction  of  a 
new  factor,  to  which  the  taint  of  sin  does  not  attach. 
If  like  produces  like,  the  element  of  unlikeness  must 
come  from  that  to  which  it  has  itself  affinity.  Our 
names  for  the  process  do  but  largely  cover  our  ignor- 
ance, but  we  may  be  sure  that  there  is  essential  truth 
contained  in  the  scriptural  phrase,  'The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most  High 
shall  overshadow  thee;  wherefore  also  that  which  is  to 
be  born  shall  be  called  holy,  the  Son  of  God.' 

[The  most  important  literature  has  been  mentioned 
in  the  course  of  this  section.] 


14 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

CONCLUDING  SURVEY:    THE  VERDICT  OF 
HISTORY. 

A.  Christ  m  History. 

§  83.  So  far  we  have  been  involved  in  the  study  of  the 
details  of  the  Life  of  Christ,  mainly  on  the  basis  of  the 
Gospels.  But  the  Gospels  alone,  though  the  fragments 
which  they  have  preserved  for  us  of  that  Life  are 
beyond  all  price,  would  yet  convey  an  incomplete  idea 
of  the  total  impression  left  by  it  even  upon  contem- 
poraries, still  less  of  all  that  it  has  been  in  the  history 
of  the  world.  Especially  would  this  be  the  case  if,  as 
some  would  have  us  do,  we  were  to  follow  the  first 
three  Gospels  only,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  fourth.  To 
that  point  we  shall  return  for  a  moment  presently. 
But  the  time  has  now  come  to  enlarge  our  view,  to 
look  back  upon  our  subject  from  the  vantage-ground 
which  we  occupy  at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth 
century,  and  to  endeavour  to  see  it  no  longer  as  an 
episode  affecting  a  small  portion  of  an  *  unimportant 
branch  of  the  Semitic  peoples,'  but  as  it  enters  into  the 
course  of  the  great  world-movement  of  the  centuries. 


212  CONCLUDING  SURVEY 

If  we  would  appreciate  this,  we  must  once  more  go 
back  to  the  Origins,  not  now  so  much  in  search  of 
details,  as  in  order,  if  possible,  to  catch  rather  more  of 
the  total  impression.  We  cannot,  of  course,  attempt 
to  interrogate  the  whole  of  history.  For  our  present 
purpose  it  may  be  enough  to  consider  (i.)  the  net  result, 
if  we  may  so  speak,  of  the  portraiture  of  Christ  in  the 
Gospels ;  (ii.)  the  impression  left  by  a  similar  reading 
of  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  especially  the 
Epistles ;  (iii.)  the  testimony  borne  by  the  Early 
Church,  both  formulated  and  informal ;  (iv.)  the  ap- 
peal that  may  be  made  to  the  religious  experience  of 
Christians. 

The  last  of  these  heads  is  not  really  so  disparate  as 
it  may  seem  from  the  rest.  The  ultimate  object  that 
we  have  in  view  is  to  bring  home  —  or  to  suggest  lines 
on  which  it  may  be  possible  to  bring  home  —  what 
Christ  really  was  and  is  to  the  individual  believer.  In 
order  to  do  this  we  endeavour  to  collect  (i.)  what  He 
was  to  those  among  whom  He  moved  during  His  life 
on  earth;  (ii.)  what  He  was  to  His  disciples,  and 
primarily  to  the  apostles  after  His  departure ;  (iii.) 
what  the  still  undivided  Church  apprehended  Him  as 
being.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  there  is  no  real  anti- 
thesis, as  though  the  appeal  were  in  the  one  case  to 
history  and  in  the  other  to  experience.  For  our  present 
purpose  history  may  be  regarded  as  the  collective  ex- 
perience of  the  past,  which  we  are  seeking  to  put  into 
line  with  the  individual  or  collective  experience  of  the 
present.  Our  historical  survey,  so  far  as  it  goes, 
simply  embodies  so  many  superimposed  strata  of  ex- 
perience. 


CHRIST   IN   HISTORY  213 

§  84.  i.  The  Christ  of  the__J}osj)els .  —  We  should  thus 
be  inclined  to  deprecate  the  attempts  which  are  from 
time  to  time  made  to  set  in  contrast  some  one  or  other 
branch  of  the  appeal  that  we  are  making  as  against  the 
rest.  In  this  country  we  are  accustomed  to  the  opposi- 
tion between  the  Christ  of  the  (Synoptic)  Gospels  and  ^ 
the  Christ  of  'Dogma'  or  of  the  Church.  And  in 
Germany  of  late  there  has  been  a  tendency  to  oppose 
the  Christ  conceived  and  preached  by  the  apostles  to 
the  biographical  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  and  the  experi- 
ence of  faith  to  any  external  and  objective  standards. 
(See  especially  the  works  of  Kahler  and  Hermann  men- 
tioned on  page  216.) 

The  disparagement  of  the  Gospels  as  biographies 
seems  to  us,  so  far  as  it  goes,  —  and  neither  writer  is 
really  very  clear  on  the  subject,  —  to  rest  upon  a  some- 
what undue  degree  of  scepticism  as  to  the  critical  use 
that  can  be  made  of  the  Gospels.  It  does  not  follow 
that  all  that  is  doubted  is  really  doubtful.  For  a  more 
detailed  testing  of  the  historical  character  of  the  Gospels 
we  must  content  ourselves  with  referring  to  the  previous 
part  of  this  article,  only  adding  to  it  the  two  points 
which  will  be  more  appropriately  introduced  at  the  end 
of  the  next  section,  —  the  peculiar  kind  of  confirmation 
which  the  two  pictures  (the  evangelic  and  the  apostolic) 
supply  to  each  other,  the  difference  between  them  show- 
ing that  the  teaching  of  the  Epistles  has  not  encroached  ! 
upon  the  historical  truth  of  the  Gospels,  while  the  less 
obvious  likeness  shows  that  they  are  in  strict  continuity. 
We  shall  also  have  to  state  once  more  in  that  context 
our  reasons  for  believing  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  be  really 
the  work  of  an  eye-witness. 


214  CONCLUDING   SURVEY 

But  the  point  that  concerns  us  most  at  the  present 
moment  is  that,  even  if  we  make  to  negative  criticism 
larger  concessions  than  we  have  any  right  to  make, 
there  will  still  remain  in  the  Gospel  picture  ineffaceable 
features  which  presuppose  and  demand  that  estimate 
of  the  Person  of  Christ  which  we  can  alone  call  in  the 
strict  sense  Christian. 

Take,  for  instance,  that  central  passage  Mt  n^®^ 
'  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden, 
and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and 
learn  of  me ;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart :  and  ye 
shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls.  For  my  yoke  is  easy, 
and  my  burden  is  light.'  Could  we  conceive  such 
words  put  into  any  other  hps,  even  the  loftiest  that 
the  history  of  mankind  has  produced?  They  are  full 
of  delicate  self-portraiture.  They  present  to  us  a  char- 
acter which  we  may  say  certainly  was,  because  it  has 
been  so  described.  No  mere  artist  in  words  ever 
painted  such  a  canvas  without  a  living  model  before 
him.  The  portrait  is  of  One  who  is  '  meek  and  lowly 
in  heart,'  whose  yoke  is  easy  and  His  burden  light; 
and  yet  He  speaks  of  both  yoke  and  burden  as  *  His ' 
in  the  sense  of  being  imposed  by  Him ;  He  invites  men 
to  '  come '  to  Him,  evidently  with  a  deep  significance 
read  into  the  phrase;  He  addresses  His  invitation  to 
weary  souls  wherever  such  are  to  be  found ;  and 
(climax  of  all !)  He  promises  what  no  Alexander  or 
Napoleon  ever  dreamt  of  promising  to  his  followers, 
that  He  would  give  them  the  truly  supernatural  gift  of 
rest  —  the  tranquillity  and  serenity  of  inward  peace  in 
spite  of  the  friction  of  the  world ;  that  all  this  should 
be  theirs  by  '  coming '  to  Him. 


CHRIST   IN   HISTORY  21$ 

And  then  how  easy  is  it  to  group  round  such  a 
passage  a  multitude  of  others  !  '  I  say  unto  you, 
Resist  not  him  that  is  evil :  but  whosoever  smiteth 
thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also ' 
(Mt  5^^).  'The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered 
unto,  but  to  minister'  (Mk  lo*^  ||).  'Suffer  the  little 
children  to  come  unto  me ;  forbid  them  not :  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God'  {ib.  v.  "||).  'Whosoever 
would  save  his  Hfe  shall  lose  it :  and  whosoever  shall 
lose  his  life  for  my  sake  and  the  gospel's  shall  save  it ' 
(Mk  8^) .  '  The  Son  of  Man  came  to  seek  and  to  save 
that  which  was  lost '  (Lk  19^^,  comp.  the  three  parables 
of  Lk  15).  'Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of  these  my 
brethren,  even  these  least,  ye  did  it  unto  me  '  (Mt  25^). 

Sayings  like  these,  it  is  needless  to  add,  could  be 
multiplied  almost  indefinitely.  Through  all  of  them 
there  runs,  indirectly,  if  not  directly,  the  same  self- 
portraitures.  And  it  is  a  self-portraiture  that  has  the 
same  two  sides.  On  the  one  hand  there  is  the  human 
side,  the  note  of  meekness  or  lowliness,  condescension 
that  is  not  (though  it  really  is !)  condescension  but 
infinite  sympathy,  patience,  tenderness ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  no  less  firmly  drawn,  for  all  the  lightness 
and  restraint  of  touch,  an  absolute  range  of  command 
and  authority;  all  things  delivered  to  the  Son  in  heaven 
and  on  earth  (cf.  Mt  11^  28^»). 

That  which  we  have  called  the  '  human  side '  fills 
most  of  the  foreground  in  the  Gospels;  the  other,  the 
transcendental  side,  is  somewhat  shaded  by  it ;  and  we 
can  see  that  it  was  deliberately  shaded,  that  the  pro- 
portions were  such  as  mainly  (though,  as  we  shall  see, 
not    entirely)    corresponded    to    the    facts,   or,    in    other 


2l6  CONCLUDING  SURVEY 

words,  to  the  divine  method  and  order  of  presentation. 
But  when  we  turn  from  the  Gospels  to  the  rest  of  the 
NT  we  shall  find  these  proportions  inverted. 

We  only  pause  upon  this  Gospel  picture  a  moment 
more  to  say  that,  apart  from  any  question  of  criticism 
of  documents  or  of  details  in  the  narrative,  it  seems  to 
us  to  be  utterly  beyond  the  reach  of  invention.  The 
evangelists  themselves  were  too  near  to  the  events  to 
see  them  in  all  their  significance.  They  set  down,  like 
honest  men,  the  details  one  after  another  as  they  were 
told  them.  But  it  was  not  their  doing  that  these 
details  work  in  together  to  a  singular  and  unsought 
harmony. 

Literature.  —  The  fullest  account  of  recent  discussions  as  to 
the  adequacy  and  trustworthiness  of  the  presentation  of  Christ  in 
the  Gospels  will  be  found  in  the  second  enlarged  edition  of  Kahler's 
Der  sogenannte  historische  Jesus  und  der  geschichtliche,  biblische  Chris- 
ius,  Leipzig,  1896.  Another  work,  which  lays  the  stress  rather  on 
personal  experience  of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  is  written  with  great 
earnestness  from  that  point  of  view,  but  seems  to  us  too  restricted  in 
its  historical  basis,  is  Hermann's  Der  Verkehr  des  Christen  mit  Gott, 
ed.  2,  Stuttgart,  1892  (Eng.  tr.  1895). 

§  85.  ii.  The  Christ  of  the  Apostles.  —  In  passing  over 
from  the  Gospels  to  the  rest  of  the  NT  we  find  ourselves 
hampered  by  critical  questions.  What  we  should  most 
wish  to  ascertain  is  the  conception  of  Christ  held  by  the 
mass  of  the  first  disciples.  And  to  some  extent  we  can 
get  at  this ;  but,  so  far  as  we  can  do  so,  it  is  nearly 
always  indirectly.  The  writings  that  have  come  down 
to  us  are  those  of  the  leaders,  not  of  the  followers; 
and  many  even  of  these  are  encumbered  with  questions 
as  to  date   and  origin.     Some  of  these  do  not  so  much 


CHRIST   IN   HISTORY  21/ 

matter,  because  in  any  case  they  belong  to  the  end 
rather  than  the  beginning  of  the  apostoUc  age.  The 
one  book  which  we  should  most  like  to  use  more  freely 
than  we  can  is  the  Acts,  the  earlier  chapters  of  which 
we  quite  agree  with  the  author  of  the  article  in  Dr. 
Hastings'  Dictionary  in  estimating  highly. 

We  will,  however,  cut  the  knot  by  not  attempting 
to  summarize  the  teaching  of  all  the  undisputed  books, 
but  by  taking  a  single  typical  example  of  manageable 
compass,  the  first  extant  NT  writing,  i  Thessalonians, 
written  probably  about  a.d.  51  —  in  any  case  not  later 
than  53,  or  within  the  first  quarter  of  a  century  after 
the  Ascension. 

Let  us  suppose  for  a  moment,  with  the  more  extreme  critics, 
that  a  thick  curtain  falls  over  the  Church  after  this  event.  The 
curtain  is  lifted,  and  what  do  we  find  ?  We  turn  to  the  opening 
verse  of  the  Epistle  (emended  reading).  St.  Paul  and  his  com- 
panions give  solemn  greeting  to  the  '  Church  of  the  Thessalonians 
(which  is)  in  God  the  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  An 
elaborate  process  of  reflexion,  almost  a  system  of  theology,  lies 
behind  those  familiar  terms.  First  we  note  that  the  human  name 
'  Jesus '  is  closely  associated  with  the  title  '  Christ '  or  '  Messiah,' 
which  in  the  Gospels  had  been  claimed  with  such  quiet  reticence 
and  unobtrusiveness.  From  this  time  onwards  the  two  names  are 
almost  inseparable,  or  the  second  supersedes  the  first:  in  other 
words,  Jesus  is  hardly  ever  thought  of  apart  from  His  high 
Messianic  dignity.  This  effect  is  pressed  home  by  the  further 
title  'Lord'  (Ki^pios).  The  disciples  had  been  in  the  habit  of  ad- 
dressing their  Master  as  '  Lord '  during  His  lifetime,  in  a  sense 
not  very  different  from  that  in  which  any  Rabbi  might  be  addressed 
by  his  pupils  (Jn  13^^*').  But  that  sense  is  no  longer  adequate;  the 
word  has  been  filled  with  a  deeper  meaning.  That  '  Jesus  is  Lord ' 
has  become  the  distinctive  confession  of  Christians  (i  Co  12*,  Ro  10^), 
where  *  Lord '  certainly  =  '  the  exalted  Lord '  of  the  Resurrection 
and  Ascension  (cf.  Ac  2^''). 

What  is  still  more  remarkable,  the  glorified  Jesus  is,  as  it  were, 
bracketed  with   'God   the  Father.'     Let  us   think  what  this  would 


2l8  CONCLUDING  SURVEY 

mean  to  a  strict  Jewish  monotheist ;  yet  St.  Paul  evidently  holds 
the  juxtaposition,  not  as  something  to  which  he  is  tentatively  feel- 
ing his  way,  but  as  a  fundamental  axiom  of  faith.  In  the  appella- 
tion 'Father'  we  have  already  the  first  beginning  —  may  we  not 
say  the  first  decisive  step,  which  potentially  contains  the  rest?  — 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  And  we  observe,  further, 
that  the  Thessalonian  Church  is  said  to  have  its  being  '  in  Christ ' 
as  well  as  '  in  God.'  This  is  a  characteristic  touch  of  Pauline 
mysticism.  The  striking  thing  about  it  is  that  in  this,  too,  the  Son 
already  holds  a  place  beside  the  Father  (cf.  2^^  4^**). 

There  is  another  passage  in  the  Epistle  (l  Th  3II)  in  which  there 
is  the  same  intimate  combination  of  '  our  God  and  Father '  and 
'  our  Lord  Jesus.'  Here  the  context  is  not  exactly  mystical,  but 
the  two  names  are  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  divine  pre- 
rogative of  ordering  events.  The  apostle  prays  that  God  and  Christ 
will  together  'direct'  (Kareu^iywt,  ' make  straight  and  unimpeded') 
his  way  to  them  (the  Thessalonians). 

It  is  not  by  accident  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in  a  similar  manner 
implicated  in  divine  action  (i^*  ^  4^  5^^)5  though  it  would  be  too  much 
to  say  that  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of  distinctly  as  a  Person, 

The  historical  events  of  the  life  of  Christ  are  hardly  alluded  to, 
except  His  death  and  resurrection  (1^°  4I*  5I'').  In  the  last  of  these 
verses  Christ  is  said  to  have  died  '  for  us';  and  in  the  preceding 
verse  '  salvation,'  which  is  contrasted  with  '  death,'  is  said  to  come 
'through'  Him.  In  i^''  He  is  also  spoken  of  as  delivering  Chris- 
tians '  from  the  wrath  to  come.'  It  is  assumed  that  Christ  is  in 
heaven,  from  whence  He  is  expected  to  come  again  with  impressive 
manifestations  of  power  (i^"  4^^*^';  cf.  also  the  frequent  allusions  to 
■t)  Trapovffia  toO  Kvplov), 

The  Second  Coming  is  the  only  point  on  which  the  Epistle  can 
be  said  to  contain  direct  and  formal  teaching.  The  other  points 
mentioned  are  all  assumed  as  something  already  known,  not  as  im- 
parted for  the  first  time. 

Not  only  may  we  say  that  they  are  known,  but  it  is  also  fair  to 
infer  that  they  are  undisputed.  There  is  a  hint  of  controversy  with 
the  unbelieving  Jews,  but  no  hint  of  controversy  with  the  Judaean 
Churches,  which  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  Christ  (2^*-^'').  This  is 
important ;  and  it  is  fully  borne  out  by  the  other  Epistles,  which 
show  just  how  far  the  disputed  ground  between  St.  Paul  and  the 
other  apostles  extended.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  sharp  debate 
about  the  terms  on  which  Gentiles  shou'd  be  admitted.  There  is  no 
trace  of  any  debate  as  to  the  estimate  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 


CHRIST   IN   HISTORY  219 

We  have  referred  to  the  Pauline  mysticism  and  to 
the  hints,  slight  but  significant,  of  what  is  known 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  It  is  clear  that 
St.  Paul  ascribed  to  Christ  not  only  divine  attributes 
but  divine  activities  —  activities  in  the  supersensual 
sphere,  what  he  elsewhere  calls  *  heavenly  places '  (to, 
iTrovpavLo).  We  know  how  these  activities  are  en- 
larged upon  in  the  Epistles  to  Corinthians,  Galatians, 
and  Romans.  It  would,  of  course,  be  wrong  to  suppose 
that  all  Christians,  or  indeed  any  great  number,  had 
an  intelligent  grasp  of  these  '  mysteries ' ;  but  we  can 
see  from  the  Epistle  to  Hebrews,  i  Peter,  Epistles  of 
John,  and  Revelation,  that  conceptions  quite  as  trans- 
cendental had  a  wide  diffusion.  And  a  verse  like 
2  Co  13"  shows  that  there  must  have  been  large  tracts 
of  important  teaching  which  are  imperfectly  represented 
in  our  extant  documents.  When  we  consider  how  occa- 
sional these  documents  are  in  their  origin,  the  wonder 
is  not  that  they  have  conveyed  to  us  so  little  of  the  apos- 
tolic teaching,  but  that  they  have  conveyed  so  much. 

The  summary  impression  that  we  receive  is  indeed 
that  the  revolution  foreshadowed  at  the  end  of  the  last 
section  has  been  accomplished.  The  historical  facts  of 
the  Lord's  life  were  not  neglected ;  for  Gospels  were 
being  written,  of  which  those  which  we  now  possess 
are  only  surviving  specimens.  But  in  the  whole  epis- 
tolary literature  of  NT  they  have  receded  very  much 
into  the  background,  as  compared  with  those  transcen- 
dental conceptions  of  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ, 
to  which  the  Gospels  pointed  forward,  but  which  (with 
one  exception)  they  did  not  directly  expound. 

No   doubt    this   was   in    the    main    only  what  was    to 


220  CONCLUDING   SURVEY 

be  expected.  The  narrative  of  the  Gospels  goes  back 
to  the  period  before  the  Resurrection;  the  epistolary 
literature  dates  altogether  after  it.  Still  it  is  remark- 
able how  we  seem  to  be  plunged  all  at  once  into  the 
midst  of  a  developed  theology.  Nor  is  the  wonder 
lessened,  it  is  rather  increased,  when  we  remark  that 
this  theology  is  only  in  part  set  before  us  deliberately 
as  teaching.  The  fact  that  it  is  more  often  presupposed 
shows  how  deep  a  hold  it  must  have  taken  alike  of  the 
writer  and  of  his  readers. 

Impressive  contrasts  are  sometimes  drawn  {e.g.  at 
the  beginning  of  Dr.  Hatch's  Hibbert  Lectuj-es)  between 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  Nicene  Creed ; 
and  the  contrast  certainly  is  there.  But  it  goes  back  far 
beyond  the  period  of  the  Arian  controversy.  It  is 
hardly  less  marked  between  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
and  the  writings  which  have  come  down  to  us  under 
the  names  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  And  yet  these 
writings  are  practically  contemporary  with  the  com- 
position of  the  Gospels.  The  two  streams,  of  historical 
narrative  on  the  one  hand  and  theological  inference  on 
the  other,  really  run  side  by  side.  They  do  not  exclude 
but  rather  supplement,  and  indeed  critically  confirm, 
each  other.  For  if  the  Gospels  had  been  really  not 
genuine  histories  of  the  words  and  acts  of  Christ,  but 
coloured  products  of  the  age  succeeding  His  death, 
we  may  be  sure  that  they  would  have  reflected  the 
characteristic  attitude  of  that  age  far  more  than  they 
do.  They  do  not  reflect  it,  but  they  do  account  for  it 
by  those  delicate  hints  and  subtly  inwoven  intimations 
that  He  who  called  Himself  so  persistently  Son  of  Man 
was  also  Son  of  God. 


CHRIST   IN   HISTORY  221 

The  one  Gospel  which  bridges  the  gap  more  un- 
mistakably than  the  others  is  the  Fourth.  And  the 
reason  is  obvious,  if  St.  John  was  its  author.  He  had 
a  foot  in  both  worlds.  As  the  disciple  whom  Jesus 
loved,  he  vividly  remembered  His  incomings  and  out- 
goings. And  in  the  same  capacity,  as  a  disciple  who 
was  also  an  apostle,  it  fell  to  him  to  build  up  that 
theology  which  was  the  deliberate  expression  of  what 
Jesus  was  to  His  Church,  not  in  a  section  only  of  His 
being,  the  short  three  years  which  He  had  spent  among 
His  followers,  but  in  His  being  as  He  had  revealed 
it  to  them  as  a  whole.  It  is  difficult  to  think  of 
either  function  as  merely  assumed  by  the  writer  at 
second-hand.  On  the  contrary,  we  acquire  a  fresh 
understanding  of  the  weight  and  solemnity  of  his  words 
when  we  think  of  these  as  springing  from  direct 
personal  contact  with  Christ,  and  intense  personal 
conviction  of  what  Christ  really  was,  not  to  himself 
only,  but  to  the  world.  In  this  respect  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  unique ;  and  the  very  expansion  which  it 
gives  of  the  divine  claims  of  Christ  prepares  us  more 
completely  than  the  other  Gospels  alone  might  have 
done  for  the  transition  from  them  to  the  Epistles. 

It  is  an  especial  satisfaction  to  be  able  to  quote,  in  support  of 
this  view  of  the  first-hand  character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  Dr. 
Loofs  in  PRE^  iv.  29. 

§  86.  iii.  TJie  Christ  of  the  Undivided  Church. — For 
the  purpose  which  we  have  before  us  we  must  examine 
the  evidence  of  the  Undivided  Church  on  three  distinct 
points,  {a)  What  was  the  estimate  of  the  Person  of 
Christ   in   the   age    immediately   succeeding    that    of   the 


222  CONCLUDING  SURVEY 

Apostles?  (^)  Are  there  any  traces  of  a  tradition 
different  from  this?  (r)  What  is  the  bearing  upon  the 
subject  of  the  creeds  and  conciliar  decisions? 

(a)  On  the  first  head  we  may  say  broadly  that  the 
mass  of  Christian  opinion  was  in  strict  continuity 
with  the  NT,  rarely  (as  we  might  expect)  rising  to  an 
apprehension  of  its  heights  and  depths,  and  keep- 
ing rather  at  the  average  level,  but  steadily  loyal  in 
intention,  and  showing  no  signs  of  recalcitrance. 

Ignatius  of  Antioch  has  the  strongest  grip  of  distinctive  features 
of  NT  teaching  (Virgin-Birth,  pre-existence,  incarnation,  Logos, 
Trinitarian  language).  Clemens  Romanus,  though  much  less 
theological,  also  has  pre-existence  and  a  clearly  implied  Trinity 
(Iviii.  2).  In  the  former  point  Barnabas  and  Hermas  agree. 
though  the  latter  shows  some  confusion,  not  uncommon  at  this 
date,  between  Son  and  Spirit.  And  then  we  have  the  opening 
words  of  2  Clement  which  exactly  describe  the  general  temper, 
'Brethren,  we  ought  so  to  think  of  Jesus  Christ  as  of  God,  as  of 
the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead.' 

These,  with  Polycarp  and  Aristides,  who  adopt  a  similar  tone, 
are  the  writers.  And  then  when  we  look  for  evidence  as  to 
popular  feeling  and  practice,  we  have  the  wide  prevalence  of 
baptism  in  the  Threefold  Name  (^Didache  and  Justin),  and  the 
hymns  sung  'to  Christ  as  God'  (Pliny,  Ep.  ad  Trajan,  xcvi.; 
cf.  Eus.  HE  V.  xxviii.  5).  It  is  clear  that  prayer  was  generally 
offered  to  Christ.  Origen's  objection  to  this  was  a  theological 
refinement,  as  he  held  that  the  proper  formula  was  evx'ipi-'^Telv  t(^ 
eei^  810.  X.  'I.  (de  Orat.  15). 

The  group  of  Apologists  which  stands  out  so  clearly  in  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  is  characterized  chiefly  by  the  use 
that  is  made  of  the  Logos  doctrine,  which  was  identified  with  the 
Logos  of  philosophy.  With  them  begins  a  more  active  spirit  of 
reflexion  and  speculation.  The  relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father, 
and  indeed  the  whole  problem  of  unity  and  distinctions  in  the 
Godhead  (Justin  and  Athenagoras),  is  beginning  to  be  keenly 
canvassed.  And  at  the  same  time  it  is  clear  that  the  question  of 
what  were  afterwards  called  the  'Two  Natures'  was  causing  much 
perplexity.     It    was    this    difficulty    which    really    lies    behind    the 


CHRIST  IN   HISTORY  223 

experiments  of  Gnosticism.  When  we  come  to  the  latter  half  and 
last  quarter  of  the  century,  with  the  theologians  of  Asia  Minor, 
Irenaeus,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  the  foundations  have  been  laid 
of  a  Christian  theology,  which  already  bears  the  stamp  that  marks  it 
throughout  succeeding  centuries,  viz.  that  it  is  not  free  speculation, 
but  reflexion  upon  data  given  by  the  Bible. 

{U)  It  was  natural,  and  could  not  well  have  been 
otherwise,  that  there  was  in  this  reflexion  at  first  a  con- 
siderable tentative  element.  There  was  no  break,  and 
no  conscious  divergence  between  it  and  the  canonical 
writings.  But  are  there  no  signs  of  such  divergence? 
Are  there  no  signs  of  a  tradition  differing  from  that 
embodied  in  these  writings?  Perhaps  we  ought  to  say 
that  there  are. 

The  Gnostics  began  by  inventing  traditions  of  their  own,  but 
they  soon  fell  into  the  groove,  and  professed  to  base  their  views 
like  the  rest  on  the  canonical  Scriptures.  A  conspicuous  example 
of  this  is  Heracleon's  commentary  on  St.  John.  But  in  these 
circles  there  was  what  we  might  call  recalcitrance,  as  when  Ce- 
rinthus  and  Carpocrates  rejected  the  Virgin-Birth  as  impossible  (Iren. 
adv.  Hcer.  I.  xxvi.  i,  xxv.  i).  The  Gnostics,  however,  are  outside 
the  true  development  of  Christianity,  and  their  systems  had  a  differ- 
ent origin. 

In  closer  contact  with  Christianity  proper  are  the  heretical 
Ebionites.  For  them  a  better  claim  might  be  made  out  to  repre- 
sent a  real  divergence  of  tradition.  It  is  possible  that  their  denial 
of  the  Virgin- Birth  was  derived  from  the  state  of  things  when  the 
canonical  narratives  had  not  yet  obtained  any  wide  circulation. 
And  yet  we  should  have  to  pass  upon  these  Ebionites  a  verdict 
similar  to  that  already  passed  upon  the  Gnostics.  They  were  really 
Jews  imperfectly  Christianized.  If  they  regarded  Christ  as  vi'iXdj 
dfdpuTros,  it  was  doubtless  because  the  Jews  did  not  expect  their 
Messiah  to  have  any  other  origin.  This  is  a  different  thing  from, 
though  it  may  have  some  subordinate  connexion  with,  the  views  {e.g.) 
of  Paul  of  Samosata,  whose  difficulty  was  caused  by  the  union  of 
the  two  natures.  The  human  nature  he  regarded  as  having  an 
ordinary  human  birth,  though  it  came  to  be  united  to  the  Divine 
Logos, 


224  CONCLUDING  SURVEY 

A  like  account  would  hold  good  of  Theodotus  of  Byzantium  and 
the  Rationalists  described  in  Eus.  HE  v.  xxviii.  At  last  the 
reader  may  think  that  he  is  upon  the  track  of  a  genuine  Rational- 
ism ;  but  this  did  not  go  very  deep.  It  was  consistent  with  belief 
in  the  Virgin-Birth  and  in  the  Resurrection  (Ilippolytus,  Ref.  Hcer. 
vii.  35);  in  fact  it  probably  amounted  to  little  more  than  a  dry  literal 
exegesis. 

The  Clementine  Homilies  point  out  that  Christ  did  not  call  Him- 
self *  God'  but  the  'Son  of  God,'  and  they  emphasize  this  distinction 
somewhat  after  the  manner  of  the  later  Arians  (xvi.  15,  16).  When 
we  have  said  this,  we  shall  have  touched  (it  is  believed)  on  all  the 
main  types  of  what  might  be  thought  to  be  a  denial  of  Christ's  full 
Godhead. 

The  more  pressing  danger  of  primitive  Christianity  lay  in  an 
opposite  direction.  Loyalty  to  Christ  was  so  strong  that  the 
simpler  sort  of  Christians  were  apt  to  look  upon  the  humanity  as 
swallowed  up  in  the  divinity.  This  is  the  true  account  of  the  early 
prevalence  of  Docetism  (which  made  the  deity  of  Christ  real,  the 
humanity  phantasmal  or  unreal),  and  of  the  later  prevalence  of 
what  is  known  to  students  as  Modalistic  Monarchianism,  and  to 
the  general  reader  as  Sabellianism  (the  doctrine  that  the  Son  and 
the  Spirit  were  not  distinct  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  but  modes  or 
aspects  of  the  One  God).  The  answer  of  Noetus  was  typical  of  the 
frame  of  mind  that  gave  rise  to  this,  '  What  harm  do  I  do  in  glorify- 
ing Christ?'  (Hippol.  c.  Noet.  i)  :  it  seemed  meritorious  to  identify 
Christ  with  God.  Both  these  tendencies  were  far  stronger  and  more 
widely  spread  than  anything  that  savoured  of  Rationalism.  Docetism 
entered  largely  into  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  and  Acts,  which  were 
very  popular ;  and  both  TertuUian  (^Prax.  i,  3)  and  Hippolytus 
(^Ref.  Hfsr.  ix.  6,  fi^yia-ros  dywp)  imply  that  the  struggle  against 
Monarchianism  was  severe. 

It  is  evident  from  this  to  which  side  the  scales 
incUned.  The  traces  of  anything  like  RationaHsm  in 
the  modern  sense  are  extremely  few  and  slight.  For 
the  most  part,  what  looks  like  it  is  not  pure  Rational- 
ism (or  Humanitarianism)  at  all.  More  formidable  was 
the  excess  of  zeal  which  exalted  the  divine  in  Christ  at 
the  expense  of  the  human.  But  the  main  body  of  the 
Church    held    an    even    way   between    both   extremes, — 


CHRIST   IN   HISTORY  22  5 

held  it  at  least  in  intention,  though  there  were  no  doubt 
a  certain  number  of  unsuccessful  experiments  in  the 
construction  of  reasoned  theory. 

(c)  It  was  inevitable  that  in  the  early  centuries  there 
should  be  a  great  amount  of  tentative  thinking.  But 
Httle  by  Httle  this  was  sifted  out;  and  by  the  middle 
of  the  fifth  century  the  ancient  Church  had  practically 
made  up  its  mind.  It  formulated  its  belief  in  the 
Chalcedonian  definition  (opos  t^9  iv  Xa\Kr]B6vL  TeTdpTrj<: 
avvoSov)  of  the  year  451  (which  counts  as  Ecumenical, 
though  the  only  Westerns  present  were  the  two  legates 
of  Pope  Leo  and  two  fugitive  bishops  from  Africa),  and 
in  the  Qiiicuynque  vult,  a  liturgical  creed  composed, 
according  to  a  tradition  which  may  be  sound,  by 
Dionysius  [of  Milan]  and  Eusebius  [of  Vercelli],  (cf.  the 
remarkable  preface  in  the  Irish  Liber  Hymnorinn,  i.  203, 
ii.  92,  ed.  Bernard  and  Atkinson,  Lond.  1898). 

This  creed  and  the  definitions  of  Chalcedon  represent  the  end 
of  the  process;  the  beginning  is  marked  by  the  creed  known  as 
the  Apostles'.  Criticism  has  of  late  been  active  upon  this  creed  as 
well  as  upon  the  so-called  Nicene  and  Athanasian,  with  a  result 
which  tends,  it  may  be  generally  said,  to  heighten  the  value  of  all 
three.  The  date  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  (in  its  oldest  and  shortest 
form)  has  been  reduced  within  the  limits  A.D.  100-150;  Kattenbusch, 
the  author  of  the  most  elaborate  monograph  on  the  subject,  leans 
to  the  beginning  of  that  period,  Harnack  to  the  end.  It  is  agreed 
that  it  was  in  the  first  instance  the  local  baptismal  creed  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  that  it  was  the  parent  of  all  the  leading 
provincial  creeds  of  the  West.  The  principal  open  question  at 
the  present  time  (1899,  1904)  is  as  to  its  relation  to  the  Eastern 
creeds.  Kattenbusch  and  Harnack  both  think  that  it  was  carried 
to  the  East  under  Aurelian  (^circa  270),  and  that  it  became  the 
parent  of  a  number  of  Eastern  creeds,  including  that  which  we 
know  as  the  Nicene;  but  this  is  conjecture.  Harnack  thinks  that 
the  Roman  creed  coalesced  with  floating  formulas,  to  which  he 
gives   the   name    of    Kerygmaia,    already    circulating    in    the    East. 

15 


226  CONCLUDING  SURVEY 

But  these  also  are  more  or  less  hypothetical.  And  the  question  is 
whether  the  Eastern  creeds,  which  resemble  the  Roman,  were  not 
rather  offshoots,  parallel  to  it,  of  a  single  primitive  creed,  perhaps 
originating  in  Asia  Minor.  This  is  substantially  the  view  of  Dr. 
Loofs.  The  main  argument  in  favour  of  it  is  that  characteristic 
features  of  the  Eastern  type  of  creed  already  appear  in  Irenaeus 
and  in  a  less  degree  in  Justin.  Harnack  would  explain  these 
features  as  due  to  his  Kei-ygmata  ;  and  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  history  of  doctrine  the  difference  is  not  very  great,  because  the 
Kerygmata  were  in  any  case  in  harmony  with  the  creed. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  overestimate  the  value  of  the  existence  of 
this  fixed  traditional  standard  of  teaching  at  so  early  a  date.  It 
was  the  rallying  and  steadying  centre  of  Catholic  Christianity, 
which  kept  it  straight  in  the  midst  of  Gnostic  extravagances  and 
among  the  perils  of  philosophical  speculation.  Our  so-called  Nicene 
Creed  is  only  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  one  of  its  more  florid  Oriental 
forms,  with  clauses  engrafted  into  it  to  meet  the  rising  heresies  of 
Arius  and  Macedonius;  while  the  Chalcedonian  formula  and  the 
Qiiicumque  take  further  account  of  the  controversies  connected  with 
the  names  of  Apollinaris,  Nestorius,  and  Eutyches. 

The  decisions  in  question  were  thus  the  outcome  of  a 
long  evolution,  every  step  in  which  was  keenly  debated 
by  minds  of  great  acumen  and  power,  really  far  better 
equipped  for  such  discussions  than  the  average  Anglo- 
American  mind  of  to-day.  If  we  can  see  that  their 
premises  were  often  erroneous  (especially  in  such 
matters  as  the  exegesis  of  the  OT),  we  can  also  see 
that  they  possessed  extraordinary  fertility  and  subtlety 
in  the  handling  of  metaphysical  problems.  The  dis- 
paraging estimates  of  the  Fathers,  which  are  often 
heard  and  seen  in  print,  are  very  largely  based  upon 
the  most  superficial  acquaintance  with  their  writings. 
There  are  many  things  in  these  which  may  provoke  a 
smile,  but  as  a  whole  they  certainly  will  not  do  so  in 
any  really  open  mind.  There  exists  at  the  present  time 
in   Germany  a  movement,   which   bears   the    name  of  its 


CHRIST   IN   HISTORY  22/ 

author  Albrecht  Ritschl  (1822-1889),  directed  against 
metaphysics  in  theology  generally.  No  doubt  Ritschl 
also  was  a  thinker  and  writer  of  great  ability ;  and  the 
stress  that  he  lays  upon  religious  experience  is  by  no 
means  without  justification.  But  it  has  not  yet  been 
proved  that  the  negative  side  of  his  argument  is  equally 
valid,  or  that  metaphysics  can  be  wholly  dispensed 
with.  And  so  long  as  this  is  the  case  we  certainly 
cannot  afford  to  ignore  these  ancient  decisions.  Every 
word  in  them  represents  a  battle,  or  succession  of 
battles,  in  which  the  combatants  were,  many  of  them, 
giants. 

Literature.  —  The  subject  of  this  section  brings  up  the  whole 
history  of  '  Christology,'  which  may  be  studied  in  well-known 
works  of  Baur,  Dorner,  and  Thomasius,  or  in  Harnack's  History 
of  Dogma.  There  is  an  excellent  survey  by  Loofs  in  PRE^  iv. 
16  ff.,  art.  *  Christologie,  Kirchenlehre,'  marked  by  much  inde- 
pendent judgment  and  research.  In  English  may  be  mentioned 
Gore,  Bampton  Lectures  (1891);  Fairbairn,  Christ  in  Modern 
Theology  (1893);    R-  L.  Ottley,  Doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  (1896). 

The  later  phases  of  the  critical  discussions  on  the  creeds  are 
set  forth  in  Kattenbusch,  Das  Apost.  Symbol  (Leipzig,  1894,  1897, 
1900);  Harnack's  art.  'Apost.  Symb.'  in  PRE^  i.  741  ff.  (this  is  the 
author's  most  complete  and  latest  utterance ;  the  Eng.  reader  may 
consult  Hist,  of  Dogma,  1.  157  ff.),  and  an  important  art.  by  Loofs 
in   G'ott.  gel.  Anzeigen,  1895. 

For  Ritschl's  attitude  it  may  be  enough  to  refer  to  his  tract, 
Theologie  ii.  Metaphysik,  Bonn,  1881.  We  had  an  English  version 
of  the  opposition  to  metaphysics  in  the  writings  of  Matthew 
Arnold. 

§  87.  iv.  The  Christ  of  Personal  Experience.  —  In  the 
case  of  Ritschl  the  religious  experience  of  the  individual 
or  of  communities  is  directly  pitted  against  metaphysics 
as  the  criterion  of  theological  truth.  But  apart  from 
philosophical    theory  it   is    the   criterion   which   is  practi- 


228 


CONCLUDING  SURVEY 


cally  applied  by  hundreds  of  thousands  of  plain  men  — 
we  will  not  say  in  search  of  a  creed,  but  in  support  of 
the  creed  which  they  have  found  or  inherited.  And 
there  is  an  immense  volume  of  evidence  derived  from 
this  source  in  corroboration  of  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
or  of  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  the  Christian 
estimate  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  The  singular  attrac- 
tion of  this  Person,  the  sense  of  what  Christ  has  done, 
not  only  for  mankind  at  large  but  for  the  individual 
believer,  the  sense  of  the  love  of  God  manifested  in 
Him,  have  been  so  overpowering  as  to  sweep  away 
all  need  for  other  kinds  of  evidence.  They  create  a 
passionate  conviction  that  the  religion  which  has  had 
these  effects  cannot  be  wrong  in  its  fundamental  doc- 
trine, the  pivot  of  the  whole. 

This  personal  experience  operates  in  two  ways.  It 
makes  the  individual  believer  cling  to  his  belief  in  spite 
of  all  the  objections  that  can  be  brought  against  it. 
But  it  also  possesses  a  formative  power  which  so 
fashions  men  in  the  likeness  of  Christ,  that  they  in 
turn  become  a  standing  witness  to  those  who  have  not 
come  under  the  same  influence.  St.  Paul  expresses  this 
by  a  forcible  metaphor  when  he  speaks  of  himself  as  in 
travail  for  his  Galatian  converts  '  until  Christ  be  formed  ' 
in  them,  as  the  embryo  is  formed  in  the  womb  (Gal  4^^). 
The  image  thus  formed  shines  through  the  man,  like 
a  light  through  glass,  and  so  He  who  came  to  be 
the  Light  of  the  world  has  His  radiance  transmitted 
downwards  through  the  centuries  and  outwards  to  the 
remotest  corners  of  the  earth. 

This  that  we  speak  of  is,  of  course,  matter  of  com- 
mon  knowledge  and  of  everyday  experience.     The  note 


THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST  229 

of  the  true  Christian  cannot  help  being  seen  wherever 
there  is  genuine  Christianity.  It  is,  however,  an  in- 
estimable advantage  that  the  process  should  have  found 
expression  in  such  classics  of  literature  as  the  Confes- 
stotis  of  St.  Augustine  and  the  De  Lnitatione.  In  these 
it  can  not  only  be  seen  but  studied. 


B.   The  Person  of  Christ. 

§  88.  It  is  necessary  that  these  outlines  should  be 
brought  to  a  close,  and  the  close  may  seem  rather  abrupt. 
And  yet  the  design  which  the  writer  set  before  himself  is 
very  nearly  accomplished.  It  will  be  his  duty  at  a  later 
date  to  return  to  his  subject  on  a  somewhat  larger 
scale ;  and  for  the  present  he  would  conclude,  not  so 
much  by  stating  results  as  by  stating  problems. 

§  89.  The  Problem  as  it  stands.  —  We  have  seen  that 
there  are  four  different  ways  of  attempting  to  grasp 
what  we  can  of  the  significance  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 
Towards  these  four  ways  the  attitude  of  different  minds 
will  be  different.  For  some  the  decisions  of  the  undi- 
vided Church  will  be  absolutely  authoritative  and  final. 
They  will  not  seek  to  go  either  behind  them  or  beyond 
them.  Others  will  set  the  comparative  simpHcity  of  the 
Gospel  picture  against  the  more  transcendental  and 
metaphysical  conceptions  of  the  age  that  followed.  To 
others,  again,  the  picture  traced  in  the  Gospels  will 
seem  meagre  and  uncertain  by  the  side  of  the  exalted 
Christ   preached   by  the   apostles.*     Yet   others  will   take 

*  *  We  know,  literally  speaking,  with  much  greater  certainty 
what  Paul  wrote  than  what  Jesus  spoke.'      'The  centre  of  gravity 


230  CONCLUDING  SURVEY 

refuge  in  the  appeal  to  individual  experience,  which  will 
seem  to  give  a  more  immediate  hold  on  Christ  and  to 
avoid  the  necessity  and  perplexities  of  criticism.  Others, 
still  more  radical  in  their  procedure,  will  begin  with  the 
assumption  that  Christ  was  only  man,  and  will  treat 
all  the  subsequent  development  as  reflecting  the  growth 
of  the  delusion  by  which  He  came  to  be  regarded  as 
God. 

This  last  is  a  drastic  method  of  levelling  down  the 
indications  of  the  divine  in  history,  against  which  human 
nature  protests  and  will  continue  to  protest.  But,  short 
of  this,  the  other  milder  alternatives  seem  to  us  to  put 
asunder  what  ought  rather  to  be  combined.  They  seem 
to  us  to  propound  antitheses,  where  they  ought  rather 
to  find  harmony.  As  the  phases  in  question,  distinctly 
as  they  stand  out  from  each  other,  are  so  many  phases 
in  the  history  of  Christianity,  they  ought  to  contribute  to 
the  elucidation  of  the  Christianity  which  they  have  in 
common. 

They  ought  to  contribute  to  it,  and  we  believe  that 
they  do  contribute  to  it.  There  is,  however,  room  still 
left  for  closer  study,  especially  of  the  transitions.  We 
have  been  so  much  in  the  habit  of  studying  the  Gospels 
by  themselves  and  the  Epistles  by  themselves  that  we 
have  not  paid  sufficient  attention  to  the  transition  from 
the  one  to  the  other.  If  we  follow  this  clue,  it  will,  we 
believe,  show  that  the  first  three  Gospels  in  particular 
need  supplementing,  that  features  which  in  them  appear 
subordinate    will    bear    greater    emphasis,    and    that    the 

for  the  understanding  of  the  Person  (of  Christ)  and  of  its  significance 
falls  upon  what  we  are  in  the  habit  of  calling  His  Work.'  Kahler 
Jesus  u.  das  A  T,  pp.  37,  60. 


THE   PERSON   OF  CHRIST  23 1 

resulting    whole    is    more    like    that     portrayed     in     the 
Fourth  Gospel  than  is  often  supposed. 

For  instance,  we  are  of  opinion  that  much  of  the 
teaching  of  Jn  14-16  is  required  by  the  verse  2  Co  13" 
and  other  allusive  passages  in  the  early  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul;  that  the  command  of  Mt  28^^  (or  something  like 
it)  is  required  by  Didache  vii.  i,  3;  Just.  Apol.  i.  61  ; 
that  the  teaching  respecting  the  Paraclete  is  required 
by  the  whole  Pauhne  doctrine  of  the  Spirit ;  that  the 
allegory  of  the  Vine  is  required  by  the  Pauline  doctrines 
of  the  Head  and  the  Members,  and  of  the  Mystical 
Union;  that  the  full  sense  of  Mk  10^  1|  is  required  by 
such  passages  as  Ro  3-*-^^  4^  5*^  etc.,  and  the  full 
sense  of  Mk  14-*  ||  by  He  9^^'^.  And  observations  of 
this  kind  may  be  very  largely  extended. 

In  hke  manner,  while  it  is  certainly  right  that  the 
conceptions  current  in  the  early  Church  as  to  the  Person 
and  Work  of  Christ  should  be  rigorously  analyzed  and 
traced  to  their  origin,  full  weight  should  be  given  to  the 
analogues  for  them  that  are  to  be  found  in  NT;  and 
where  they  have  their  roots  outside  the  Bible,  even 
there  the  efforts  of  the  human  mind  to  express  its 
deepest  ideas  may  deserve  a  more  sympathetic  judgment 
than  they  sometimes  receive. 

And  throughout,  it  is  highly  important  that  the 
doctrinal  conceptions,  whether  of  the  apostolic  age  or 
of  subsequent  ages,  should  be  brought  to  the  test  of 
living  experience,  and  as  far  as  possible  expressed  in 
the  language  of  such  experience.  The  mind  and  hearts 
of  to-day  demands  before  all  things  reality.  It  is  a 
right  and  a  healthy  demand ;  and  the  Churches  should 
try  with  all  their  power  to   satisfy  it.      If  they  fail,   the 


232  CONCLUDING  SURVEY 

fault  will   not    lie    in   their   subject-matter,   but    in   them- 
selves. 


§  90.  ii.  A  pressing  Portion  of  the  Problem.  —  There 
is  one  portion  of  the  problem  as  to  the  Person  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  which  both  in  this  country  and  in 
Germany  has  excited  special  interest  in  recent  years. 
In  its  most  concrete  form  this  is  the  question  as  to  our 
Lord's  Human  Knowledge,  which,  however,  runs  up 
directly  into  what  is  generally  known  as  the  question  of 
the  Kenosis.  And  that,  again,  when  thoroughly  ex- 
amined, will  be  found  to  raise  the  whole  question  of  the 
Two  Natures.  In  regard  to  this  series  of  connected 
questions  there  is  still  abroad  an  active  spirit  of  inquiry. 


It  was  started  in  the  first  instance  by  the  argument  from  our 
Lord's  use  of  the  OT  in  its  bearing  upon  the  question  of  OT 
criticism.  This  led  to  a  closer  examination  of  the  text,  Mk  13^2 
II  var.  led.  That,  again,  expanded  into  a  discussion  of  the  technical 
doctrine  of  the  Kenosis  (see  DB,  s.v.),  an  episode  in  which  was  a 
renewed  study  of  the  exegesis  of  Ph  2^11.  And  that,  in  turn,  in 
its  later  phase  (H.  C.  Powell's  Principle  of  the  Incarnation,  1896), 
has  opened  up  the  whole  question  of  the  Two  Natures,  which  in 
Germany  for  some  time  past  has  been  far  more  freely  handled  than 
in  Great  Britain. 

These  discussions  have  produced  one  little  work  of  classical 
value,  Dr.  E.  H.  Gifford's  study  of  Ph  2^",  entitled  the  Incar- 
nation, a  model  of  careful  and  scientific  exegesis,  which  appears 
to  leave  hardly  anything  more  to  be  said  on  that  head.  It  is  also 
right  to  note  the  special  activity  on  this  subject  of  the  diocese 
of  Salisbury,  largely  due  to  the  initiative  and  encouragement  of  its 
bishop  (Mr.  W.  S.  Swayne's  Our  Lord^s  Knoivledge  as  Man,  with  a 
preface  by  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  1891,  and  Mr.  Powell's  elaborate 
work  mentioned  above).  Weighty  contributions  have  been  made  to 
the  subject  by  Dr.  Bright  in  Waymarks  of  Church  History  (1894), 
Canon  [now  Bishop]  Gore  {Dissertations,  1898),  and  in  arts,  in  the 
Ch.  Quarterly,  Oct.  1891,  and  July  1897. 


THE   WORK   OF  CHRIST  233 

On  the  Continent  special  views  of  the  Kenosh  are  connected  with 
the  names  of  Dorner,  Thomasius,  Gess,  Godet,  and  others  rather 
more  incidentally.  Tracts  upon  the  smaller  questions  appeared  not 
long  ago  by  Schwartzkopff  {Konnte /esus  irren  ?  lSg6),  &nd  Kahler 
(/esus  u.  das  A  T,  1896). 

In  spite  of  all  this  varied  activity,  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  the  last  word  has  yet  quite  been  said  (Dr. 
Gifford's  treatment  of  the  exegetical  question  seems  to 
us  to  come  nearest  to  this).  The  first  concern  of  the 
historian  is  that  the  facts  shall  be  taken  candidly  as 
they  are.  It  is  more  probable  that  our  inferences  will 
be  wrong  than  the  data  from  which  they  are  drawn. 
And  for  the  rest,  we  should  not  be  surprised  if  a  yet 
further  examination  of  the  subject  should  result  rather 
in  a  list  of  tacenda  than  of  prcedicanda. 


C.  The  Work  of  Christ. 

§  91.  In  regard  to  the  work  of  Christ  also  it  is  best  for 
us  to  state  problems.  Of  these  the  most  important  are 
the  two  that  meet  us  first;  they  have  not  been  much 
discussed ;  and  complete  agreement  upon  them  has  not 
yet  been  attained. 

§  92.  i.  The  Place  in  the  Cosmical  Order  of  the 
Ethical  Teaching  of  Christ.  —  It  is  almost  a  question  of 
names  when  it  is  asked  whether  Christ  brought  into 
the  world  a  new  ethical  ideal.  The  question  would  be 
what  constituted  a  new  ideal.  The  Christian  ideal, 
properly  so  called,  is  a  direct  development  of  what  is 
found  in  OT,  esp.  in  Psalms  and  the  Second  Part  of 
Isaiah.  .    But    it    receives    a    finish    and    an    enrichment 


234  CONCLUDING   SURVEY 

beyond  what  it  ever  possessed  before,  and  it  is  placed 
on  deeper  foundations. 

The  chief  outstanding  question  in  regard  to  it  would 
be  the  relation  in  which  it  stood  to  the  older  ideals  of 
the  best  pagan  life  and  philosophy  in  regard  to  the  civic 
virtues,  and  to  the  newer  ideals  put  forward  in  modern 
times  in  the  name  of  science,  art,  and  industry.  The 
Christian  ideal,  it  must  be  confessed,  rather  leaves 
these  on  one  side.  That  it  should  do  so  would  be  quite 
as  explicable  if  we  adopt  the  Christian  estimate  of  the 
Person  of  Christ  as  if  we  do  not.  If  we  do  not  adopt 
it,  then  the  omission  (so  far  as  there  is  an  omission) 
would  be  one  of  the  limitations  for  which  we  were  pre- 
pared. But  if  we  take  St.  John's  view  of  the  relation 
of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  and  see  in  His  action  the 
action  willed  by  the  Father,  we  shall  see  it  as  part  of 
the  great  world-movement,  presupposing  so  much  of 
that  movement  as  had  proved  itself  to  be  of  permanent 
value  in  the  past,  and  leaving  room  for  further  develop- 
ments, corresponding  to  altered  states  of  society,  in  the 
future.  The  teaching  of  Christ  was  not  intended  to 
make  a  tabula  rasa  of  all  that  had  gone  before  in  Greece 
or  Rome  any  more  than  in  Judsea ;  nor  was  it  intended 
to  absorb  into  itself  absolutely  all  the  threads  of  subse- 
quent evolution,  where  those  threads  work  back  to 
antecedents  other  than  its  own.  It  was  intended  so  to 
work  into  the  course  of  the  world-movement  as  ulti- 
mately to  recast  and  reform  it.  Its  action  has  about  it 
nothing  violent  or  revolutionary,  but  it  is  none  the  less 
searching  and  effective.  It  is  a  force  'gentle  yet  pre- 
vailing.' 

Some   remarks   have   been   made   above    (p.    89   f.)  on 


THE   WORK   OF   CHRIST  235 

the  way  in  which  the  Christian  ethical  ideal  operates 
and  has  operated.  It  is  not  thought  that  they  are 
really  sufficient ;  but  they  represent  such  degree  of 
insight  as  the  writer  has  attained  to  at  present, 
and  he  would  welcome  warmly  any  new  light  on  the 
subject. 

§  93.  ii.  The  Significance  of  the  Personal  Example  of 
Christ  in  regard  to  His  Ethical  Teaching.  —  When  once 
it  is  realized  that  the  root  principle  of  the  ethics  of 
Jesus  is  Life  through  Death,  the  death  of  the  lower  self 
with  a  view  to  the  more  assured  triumph  of  the  higher, 
it  must  needs  break  in  upon  us  that  the  Life  of  Christ 
bears  to  His  teaching  a  wholly  different  relation  from 
that  which  the  lives  of  ordinary  teachers  bear  to  theirs. 
An  honest  man  will  no  doubt  try  to  practise  what  he 
preaches,  but  that  will  be  just  a  matter  of  maxims  of 
conduct.  The  Life  of  Christ,  we  can  see,  was  some- 
thing very  much  more  than  this.  It  was  a  systematic 
working  out  of  the  Christian  principle  on  a  conspicuous 
and  transcendent  scale.  The  Death  and  Resurrection 
of  Jesus  were  the  visible  embodiment  of  the  law  of  all 
spiritual  being  that  death  is  the  true  road  to  the  higher 
life. 

When  we  reflect  further  who  it  was  that  was  thus 
exhibiting  in  His  own  Person  the  working  out  of  this 
law  to  the  utmost  extremity,  we  become  aware  that 
Christians  have  it  indeed  *  placarded '  before  their  eyes 
(Gal  3^)  in  a  sense  in  which  no  moral  law  ever  was  set 
forth  before. 

Add  that  Christ  had  Himself  predicted  and  that  His 
followers    generally    believed    that    after    His    Ascension 


236  CONCLUDING  SURVEY 

He  was  again  visiting  His  people  through  His  Spirit ; 
that  Divine  forces  were  at  work  in  the  world,  all  radi- 
ating from  Himself — Himself  at  once  crucified  and 
risen ;  add  this  to  the  previous  beliefs  of  which  we 
have  just  spoken,  —  remember  that  Christians  supposed 
themselves  to  be  actually  conscious  of  these  forces 
impressing  and  moulding  their  own  hearts  and  lives, 
and  we  may  come  gradually  to  understand  what  St. 
Paul  meant  when  He  spoke  of  '  dying '  or  '  being  cruci- 
fied '  with  *  Christ '  and  '  rising  again  with  Him.'  It 
seems  to  be  a  similar  idea  to  that  which  St.  John  ex- 
presses when  he  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Christ  the 
claim,  *  I  am  the  Way.'  Rather,  perhaps,  we  should 
not  narrow  down  this  phrase  to  anything  less  than  the 
whole  content  of  the  Life  of  Christ  on  earth,  *  He 
supplied  in  Himself  the  fixed  plan,  according  to  which 
all  right  human  action  must  be  framed :  the  Spirit 
working  with  their  spirit  supplied  the  ever-varying 
shapes  in  which  the  one  plan  had  to  be  embodied ' 
(Hort,  Htils.  Led.  p.  30). 

§  94.  iii.  The  Work  of  Christ  as  Redemptive.  —  Here 
we  come  on  to  more  settled  ground.  At  a  very 
early  date  Christian  tradition  gave  to  Christ  the  title 
'Saviour'  (Lk  2",  Ac  s^i  1323  etc.  j  cf.  Mt  I'S  Lk  ig^^), 
'Saviour  of  the  world'  (Jn  4*-;  cf.  3"  i2^0-  What 
does  this  title  'Saviour'  include?  It  doubtless  includes 
every  sense  in  which  Christ  rescued  and  rescues  men 
from  the  power  and  the  guilt  of  sin.  He  does  this,  as 
we  have  seen,  both  by  teaching  and  by  example  —  by 
inimitable  teaching  and  by  a  consummate  example. 
But  if  we  follow  the  method  indicated  above   (p,  230  f,). 


THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST  237 

if  we  take  the  hints  in  the  Gospels,  with  the  fuller  light 
thrown  upon  them  by  the  Epistles,  we  shall  be  led  to 
the  conclusion  that  there  was  something  yet  more  in 
the  Life  and  Death  and  Resurrection  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  than  this,  that  there  was  something  in  these 
connected  acts  of  His  which  had  its  counterpart  in  the 
sacrifices  of  OT ;  and  that  the  deepest  meaning  and 
purpose  of  sacrifice  was  fulfilled  in  Him.  This  is  a 
belief  which  Christians  have  held  from  the  first  days 
onwards  ;  and  it  is  a  belief  which  does  not  and  will  not 
lack  careful  restatement  at  the  present  time. 

§  95.  iv.  The  Work  of  Christ  as  Revelation.  —  On  a 
similar  footing  is  the  belief  that  Christ  came  not  only 
to  give,  but  to  be  a  revelation  of  the  inmost  mind  and 
character  of  the  Father.  Such  a  revelation  was  needed. 
It  is  not  contained  in  the  '  cosmic  process.'  If  we  had 
that  process  alone  before  us,  we  could  not  infer  that 
God  was  a  Being  absolutely  righteous  and  absolutely 
loving.  The  idea  that  He  might  be  so  could  not  rise 
above  a  hypothesis.  But  at  this  point  the  Incarnation 
intervenes.  And  here  again  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
present  us  with  one  central  passage  (Mt  ii^^||)  with 
other  scattered  hints  which  are  taken  up  and  made 
more  explicit  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  while  that  again 
does  but  give  the  fuller  ground  for  a  belief  which  was 
certainly  held  in  the  apostolic  circle  (comp.  e.g.  the 
central  passage  Jn  14^"^"  with  lo"*'-  3^^  i  Jn  4^-^^ 
Ro  5*  etc.).  So  we  get  the  broad  doctrine  led  up  to 
by  St.  Paul  and  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (2  Co  4*^ 
Col  i".  He  i^),  and  finally  formulated  by  St.  John, 
that  the  Son  was  the  Logos  or  Word   (which  might   be 


238  CONCLUDING   SURVEY 

paraphrased    *  mouthpiece,'    or   *  vehicle   of   utterance    of 
the  mind ')   of  the  Father. 

§  96.  V.  The  Foimding  of  the  Church.  —  Conventional 
language  is  too  often  heard  as  though  the  immediate 
object  of  the  Incarnation  was  the  founding  of  the  full 
hierarchical  system  as  it  existed  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
This  language  is  based  on  the  complete  identification 
of  the  Church  with  the  'kingdom  of  heaven'  (see 
p.  83  f.  j«/.).  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  school  of 
critics,  both  in  Germany  and  in  England,  who  deny 
that  '  Jesus  ever  created,  or  thought  of  creating,  an 
organized  society.'  The  main  ground  for  this  latter 
view  is  the  doubt  that  rests  over  the  two  instances  — 
one  of  them  ambiguous  —  of  the  use  of  the  word 
'  Church '  which  are  confined  to  the  pecuHar  element 
of  the  First  Gospel  (Mt  16'^  18'^),  and  the  certainty 
that  there  are  some  senses  in  which  the  'kingdom' 
and  the  Church  cannot  be  identified.  In  some  (though 
not  in  all)  of  those  who  adopt  this  line  of  reasoning 
there  is  the  further  tendency  to  minimize  or  restrict 
all  that  would  imply  an  extended  outlook  of  Jesus 
over  the  ages. 

It  seems  to  us,  however,  to  be  going  too  far  to  say 
that  the  '  kingdom  of  heaven  is  without  organization 
and  incapable  of  being  organized.'  The  two  parables 
of  the  Tares  and  the  Draw-net  distinctly  imply  the 
existence  of  a  society ;  and  that  the  divine  laws  and 
influences  which  constitute  the  kingdom  should  ex- 
press themselves  in  a  society  as  the  vehicle  for  their 
realization  is  antecedently  probable.  But  when  Jesus 
gathered    round    Him    the    Twelve,    He    was    practically 


THE   WORK   OF  CHRIST  239 

forming  the  nucleus  of  a  society;  and  that  society  has 
had  a  continuous  existence  ever  since,  so  that  it  is 
difficult  to  think  that  it  was  not  contemplated.  More- 
over, when  we  turn  to  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  we  find 
that  even  in  his  earlier  Epistles  he  seems  to  think  of 
Christians  as  forming  a  single  body  with  diiferentiation 
of  function  (Ro  12*-*,  i  Co  12^°),  and  in  his  later 
Epistles  (Ephesians,  Colossians,  Pastoral  Epistles)  the 
unity  of  the  Church  with  its  regular  forms  of  ministry 
is  brought  out  still  more  emphatically. 

We  also  find  that  the  Day  of  Pentecost  is  described 
in  Acts  as  inaugurating  a  state  of  things  which  agrees 
well  with  the  indications  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
while    it    confirms    the    promise    of    Lk    24*^,   Jn    i^^*^-^^. 

On  the  assumptions  made  in  these  Outlines  it  would 
be  extremely  improbable  that  this  series  of  phenomena 
was  not  fully  foreseen  and  deliberately  designed  by 
Christ.  It  would  seem,  however,  that,  after  the 
manner  of  the  divine  operations  in  nature,  He  was 
rather  content  to  plant  a  germ  with  indefinite  capacities 
of  growth,  than  thought  it  necessary  Himself  to  fix  in 
advance  the  details  of  organization. 

The  exact  nature  of  the  powers  conferred  upon  the 
apostles  is  still  a  subject  of  much  discussion  as  these 
concluding  lines  are  written  (1899). 

§  97.  Lives  of  Christ.  —  To  write  the  Life  of  Christ  ideally  is 
impossible.  And  even  to  write  such  a  Life  as  should  justify  itself 
either  for  popular  use  or  for  study,  is  a  task  of  extreme  difficulty. 
After  all  the  learning,  ability,  and  even  genius  devoted  to  the  sub- 
ject, it  is  a  relief  to  turn  back  from  the  very  best  of  modern  Lives 
to  the  Gospels.  And  great  as  are  the  merits  of  many  of  these 
modern  works,  there  is  none  (at  least  none  known  to  the  writer  — 
and  there  are  several  that  he  ought  to  know  but  does  not)  which 


240  CONCLUDING  SURVEY 

possess  such  a  balance  and  combination  of  qualities  as  to  rise 
quite  to  the  level  of  a  classic.  What  is  wanted  is  a  Newman, 
with  science  and  adequate  knowledge.  No  one  has  ever  touched 
the  Gospels  with  so  much  innate  kinship  of  spirit  as  he.  It  should 
be  needless  to  say  that  the  Life  of  Christ  can  be  written  only  by  a 
believer.  Renan  had  all  the  literary  gifts  —  a  curiosa  fdicitas  of 
style,  an  eesthetic  appreciation  of  his  subject,  and  a  saving  com- 
mon-sense which  tempered  his  criticism ;  but  even  as  literature 
his  work  is  spoilt  by  self-consciousness  and  condescension,  and  his 
science  was  not  of  the  best. 

It  will  be  well  here  only  to  name  a  select  list  of  books  which 
may  be  used  more  or  less  systematically.  The  minor  works  are 
legion. 

Among  the  older  works  that  would  still  most  repay  study  would 
probably  be  those  of  Neander  (ed.  7,  1873),  Hase  {Leben  Jesu, 
ed.  5,  1865  ;  Geschichte  Jesu,  1876),  Ewald  (vol.  vi.  in  Eng.  tr.  of 
Gesch.  d.  Volkes  Israel,  1883),  Andrews  (revised  ed.  New  York  : 
Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1892). 

In  this  country  the  books  most  generally  current  are  Farrar's 
Life  of  Christ  (since  1874);  Edersheim's  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus 
the  Messiah  (since  1883,  revised  editions  from  1886,  abridged 
ed.  1890);  to  which  should  perhaps  be  added  Cunningham 
Geikie,  Life  and  Words  of  Christ  (1877).  Of  these  the  best  is 
probably  Dr.  Edersheim's  (with  very  ample  illustrations  from 
Jewish  sources) ;  but  none  of  the  three  can  quite  be  said  to 
grapple  with  the  deeper  underlying  problems,  critical  or  other. 
A  striking  attempt  was  made  by  the  late  Professor  J.  R.  Seeley 
to  realize  in  modern  forms  the  ethical  and  social  aspect  of  the 
Life  of  Christ  in  Ecce  Homo  (ed.  6,  1866).  And  the  imaginative 
works,  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott's  Philochristus  (ed.  3,  1878),  and  the 
anonymous  As  Others  Saw  Him  (1895,  see  p.  145  sup.^,  may  be 
consulted  with  advantage.  [Dr.  Abbott's  later  works  have  already 
been  mentioned  (p.  117).] 

In  French,  besides  Renan,  E.  de  Pressense  (1866,  Eng.  tr.  same 
date  and  later;  Protestant)  may  still  be  read.  Pere  Didon  (1891, 
also  translated ;  Roman  Catholic)  represents  with  dignity  the 
older  orthodoxy  ;    and  A.  Reville   (1897)   the  newer  criticism. 

The  most  thoughtful  and  searching,  as  well  as  (if  we  except 
Dr.  Edersheim)  the  most  learned  work,  has  been  done  in 
Germany.  The  two  writers  who  have  tried  most  earnestly  to 
combine  the  old  with  the  new  are  Bernhard  Weiss  and  Beyschlag. 
Of  these    we   prefer  Weiss.     His  Leben  Jesu   (1882,   Eng.  tr.   1883, 


THE   WORK   OF   CHRIST  24I 

1884)  is  a  conscientious  and  thorough  piece  of  work,  which, 
however,  has  to  be  studied  rather  than  read.  Beyschlag's  (1885 
and  later)  is  more  flowingly  written,  but  also  exhibits  rather  more 
markedly  the  weaker  side  of  a  mediating  theology.  Keim's  Jesu 
von  A^azara  (i 867-1 882,  abridged  ed.  1 873-1 883)  is  impressive 
from  the  evident  sincerity  of  its  author,  his  intellectual  force 
and  command  of  his  materials,  but  the  critical  premises  are  un- 
fortunate. A  concise  Life  which  has  just  appeared  by  Dr.  P.  W. 
Schmidt  of  Basel  {Gesch.  Jesu,  1899)  seems,  if  a  glance  may  be 
trusted,  to  come  under  the  head  of  minor  works.  It  gains  its 
conciseness  by  omitting  debatable  matter.  [This  work  is  now 
complete :  vol.  ii.  contains  elaborate  Notes  on  the  text  of  vol.  i. 
There  is  also,  now  translated  into  English,  a  larger  Life  by  Oscar 
Holtzmann,  which  may  be  said  to  represent  (with  a  few  individual- 
isms  of  no  very  great  importance)  the  average  opinion  of  German 
critical  circles.] 

The  student  may  be  advised  to  take  Weiss  for  his  principal 
commentary,  referring  to  SchUrer  (p.  28  sup.')  or  Edersheim  for 
surroundings,  and  using  along  with  it  Tischendorf 's  Synopsis  Evan- 
gelica,  or  a  Harmony  like  Stevens  and  Burton's  (new  and  revised  ed. 
New  York:  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1904).  He  should  read  Ecce 
Homo. 


16 


APPENDIX  I. 
The  Position  in  1903. 

A  Paper  read  at  the  Church  Congress,  Bristol,  October  1903. 

My  subject  is  somewhat  narrowed  down.  It  deals, 
not  with  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole,  but  only 
with  the  Gospels.  At  the  same  time,  the  Gospels 
are  so  very  much  the  most  vital  part  of  the  whole  New 
Testament,  that  what  applies  to  them  will  a  fortiori 
apply  to  the  rest,  and  will  even  affect  the  whole 
Christian  position. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  subject  assigned  to 
me  it  may  be  said  that  we  here  in  England  have 
entered  upon  a  new  period,  roughly  speaking,  with 
the  beginning  of  the  new  century.  We  may  take  as 
a  landmark  the  publication  in  English  of  Harnack's 
lectures,  known  to  us  under  the  title.  What  is 
Christianity?  in  1901,  The  same  year  saw  the 
appearance  of  Vol.  II.  of  Encyclopcedia  Biblica 
(through  the  accident  of  the  alphabet  there  had  been 
nothing  of  great  importance  for  our  subject  in  Vol.  I.) ; 
and  that  work  has  now,  as  you  know,  been  completed. 
With  the  present  year  we  have  a  new  volume  of 
the  '  Theological  Translation  Library,'  Wemle's  Begin- 
nings of    Christianity;    and   we    have   also    had    trans- 


244  APPENDIX    I 

lations    of    two    rather    noticeable    pamphlets    on    the 
Virgin  Birth,  by  Lobstein  and  Soltau. 

The  general  effect  of  these  publications  may  be  said 
to  be  that  the  English  public  has  been  placed  more 
completely  on  a  level  with  the  more  advanced  criticism 
on  the  Continent  than  it  has  ever  been  before.  And 
this  applies  especially  to  the  particular  subject  on 
which  I  am  asked  to  speak.  I  have  little  doubt  that 
the  ablest  of  all  the  articles  on  New  Testament  subjects 
in  the  Encyclopedia  Biblica  are  those  by  Professor 
P.  W.  Schmiedel,  of  Zurich.  To  him  have  fallen  the 
articles,  '  Gospels,'  *  John,  son  of  Zebedee,'  '  Mary,' 
'  Resurrection-and- Ascension-Narratives  ' ;  and  he  has 
treated  these  crucial  subjects  with  great  fulness  and 
thoroughness.  The  article,  '  Nativity,'  has  fallen  to 
another  distinguished  German  scholar.  Professor 
Hermann  Usener,  of  Bonn.  All  these  articles  are 
significant;  they  are  significant  in  the  history  of 
German  as  well  as  of  English  theology,  for  I  do  not 
think  that  the  views  expressed  had  ever  been  stated 
in  quite  so  trenchant  a  manner.  Since  the  great  works 
of  Keim  and  Weizsacker  there  had  been  rather  a  lull  in 
the  more  penetrating  criticism  of  the  Gospels.  Here  in 
Great  Britain  I  may  point  to  Dr.  Hastings'  Dictionary 
of  the  Bible,  Dr.  Swete's  St.  Mark,  Dr.  Plummer's 
St.  Luke,  Sir  John  C.  Hawkins'  Horcz  SynopticcB,  and 
other  works  as  proof  that  British  scholars  have  not 
been  idle.  But  it  would  be  true  to  say  their  efforts 
have  been  directed  primarily  to  the  literary  criticism 
and  analysis  of  the  Gospels  rather  than  to  the  criticism 
of  their  subject-matter;  it  was  generally  felt  that 
analysis  of   the  documents  ought   to  go   further  before 


THE    POSITION    IN    I903  245 

the  greater  and  more  fundamental  questions  were 
raised. 

Perhaps  the  time  had  come  for  the  next  step  to  be 
taken.  But,  whether  that  is  so  or  not,  in  any  case  it 
has  been  taken;  we  are  directly  face  to  face  with  the 
whole  problem,  or  series  of  problems,  that  the  Gospels 
raise  for  us. 

It  should  not  be  supposed  that  the  writers  I  have 
mentioned,  or  their  English  and  Scotch  sympathizers, 
are  in  all  respects  simply  radical  and  destructive. 
The  erratic  fancies  of  the  Dutch  school  (represented 
in  Encyclopcedia  Biblica  by  Professor  Van  Manen)  find 
no  favour  in  their  eyes.  Hamack,  in  particular,  is  on 
most  points  of  literary  criticism  decidedly  conservative. 
Apart  from  a  certain  difference  of  tone  in  his  latest 
utterances  about  the  Fourth  Gospel,  there  would  not 
be  a  wide  interval  between  his  views  and  those  that 
are  largely  held  in  this  country.  Neither  is  Schmiedel 
nor  Wernle  extreme  in  literary  criticism,  strictly  as 
such.  But  in  the  treatment  of  the  subject-matter  of 
the  Gospels  there  are  some  common  characteristics 
that  run  through  all  this  recent  literature.  I  will  try 
to  state  these  briefly. 

I.  There  is  a  great  tendency  to  narrow  down  the 
Gospel  to  the  actual  teaching  of  our  Lord.  Hitherto 
we  have  most  of  us  been  in  the  habit  of  describing 
by  that  name  the  sum  of  the  teaching  of  the  whole 
New  Testament.  In  the  hands  of  the  critics  it  is 
reduced  to  something  less  than  the  whole  teaching 
of  the  Gospels;  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  practically  put 
aside,  and  considerable  deductions  are  made  from  the 
Other  three. 


v 


246  APPENDIX    I 

II.  It  is  another  aspect  of  the  same  thing,  that  the 
apostolic  writers  outside  the  Gospels  are  criticised  with 
the  utmost  freedom.  For  instance,  Wernle  says  in  his 
preface :  '  Fidelity  to  the  Christian  conscience  implies 
the  clearest  and  most  unflinching  criticism  of  all  that 
contradicts  it,  even  though  it  be  received  upon  the 
authority  of  a  St.  Paul  or  a  St.  John,  /.  e.  the  Gospel 
is  to  be  employed  practically  as  the  canon  and  standard 
for  all  its  later  historical  accretions.'  At  the  outset  of 
his  lectures  Harnack  promised  to  make  use  of  the 
apostolic  writings  to  supplement  the  data  supplied 
by  the  Gospels;  but  he  never  adequately  made  good 
this  promise. 

III.  In  particular,  he  did  not  use  these  writings  as 
the  Christian  Chiu"ch  has  been  in  the  habit  of  using 
them,  to  complete  his  estimate  of  the  Person  of 
Christ.  The  distaste  for  dogma  characteristic  of  the 
school  reaches  its  highest  under  this  head.  Full 
value  is  given  to  the  recognition  of  our  Lord  as 
Son  of  Man,  but  it  could  not  be  said  that  equally  full 
value  is  given  to  the  recognition  of  Him  as  Son  of 
God. 

IV.  In  the  treatment  of  the  Gospel  narrative  we 
observe  a  general  tendency  (i)  to  the  denial  of  the 
Virgin  Birth;  (2)  to  the  restriction  of  miracles  to  the 
miracles  of  healing;  (3)  to  the  adoption  of  some  form 
of  the  vision-theory  of  the  Resurrection. 

On  the  whole,  it  must  be  said  that  the  Christianity 
of  these  writers  is  greatly  reduced  in  its  contents;  and 
we  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  the  criticism  which 
is  so  freely  exercised  on  the  more  outlying  portions  of 
the   New  Testament  does  not  spare  even  that  central 


THE    POSITION    IN    I903  247 

nucleus  from  which  it  takes  its  start — the  teaching  of 
our  Lord  Himself. 

Now  the  question  that  will  be  asked  is,  How  far  are 
these  results  the  natural  and  logical  outcome  of  the 
'  newer  historical  methods '  ?  Are  they  really  so 
scientific  as  they  claim  to  be,  and  are  very  often 
supposed  to  be  ?  I  venture  to  think  that  they  are 
not.  It  seems  to  me  that  they  rest  on  too  narrow  a 
basis.  The  assumption  with  which  they  start — that 
essential  Christianity  is  confined  to  the  teaching  of 
Christ — is,  after  all,  only  an  assumption,  and,  I  believe, 
not  a  valid  assumption. 

No  great  movement  can  rightly  be  judged  only  by 
its  initial  stages,  or  apart  from  the  impression  left  by  it 
upon  the  highest  contemporary  minds. 

It  is  a  peculiar  advantage  that  we  have  in  the  New 
Testament  the  impression  made  by  Christ  upon  minds 
endowed  with  an  extraordinary  genius  for  religion. 
There  may  be  in  the  writings  {e.g.)  of  St.  Paul  and  St. 
John  a  certain  element  that  is  derived  from  the  current 
ideas  of  the  time,  but  behind  and  beneath  this  element 
we  can  see  a  fresh  and  vivid  impression  that  comes 
straight  from  the  facts. 

Hitherto  Christians  have  thought  that  they  could 
not  do  better  than  try  to  reproduce  in  themselves  an 
attitude  of  mind  like  that  which  they  observe  in  these 
great  Apostles.  And  there  is  much  reason  to  doubt 
whether  any  other  attitude — and  in  particular  the 
attitude  of  the  modern  critics — can  have  equal  value 
from  the  point  of  view  of  religion. 

Further,  we  have  the  advantage  of  being  able  to 
study   the    experience   of   other   eminent   Christians   all 


248  APPENDIX    I 

down  the  centuries.  I  conceive  that  this  double  study, 
in  the  first  place  of  the  experience  embodied  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  in  the  second  place  of  the  like 
experience  carried  through  eighteen  additional  centuries 
of  Christian  history,  is  a  real  induction,  and  an  induc- 
tion that  rests  on  the  widest  basis  possible. 

If  we  ask  ourselves  which  describes  most  adequately 
V  the  total  effect  of  all  this  experience — the  language 
hitherto  held  by  the  whole  Christian  Church  and 
expressed  in  its  Creeds,  or  the  language  now  used  by 
a  group  of  critics — we  cannot  hesitate  a  moment  for 
the  answer. 

The  critics  of  whom  I  have  been  speaking  seem  to 
V  me  to  be  in  too  great  haste  to  rationalize  the  Gospel 
history.  They  are  too  eager  to  make  the  narrative 
of  the  Gospels  conform  to  the  conditions  of  other 
narratives,  and  to  make  the  Life  described  in  it 
conform  to  the  standard  of  other  lives.  I  do  not 
think  that  there  is  anything,  at  least  in  the  sounder 
part  of  modern  historical  methods,  that  compels  us  to 
do  this.  It  is  one  thing  '  to  read  the  Bible  like  any 
other  book,'  and  another  thing  to  assume  that  we  shall 
only  find  in  it  what  is  found  in  other  books.  Unique 
spiritual  effects  require  a  unique  spiritual  cause,  and 
we  shall  never  understand  the  full  significance  of 
that  cause  if  we  begin  by  denying  or  minimizing  its 
uniqueness. 

I  have  always  considered  the  ideal  temper  to  be  one 
that  renders  to  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and 
to  God  the  things  that  are  God's;  in  other  words,  that 
gives  to  criticism  all  that  properly  belongs  to  it,  and 
yet  leaves  room  for  the  full  impression  of  that  which  is 


THE    POSITION    IN    I903  249 

Divine.  What  we  want  to  do  is  to  keep  a  perfectly 
open  mind  towards  that  whicli  transcends  ovir  experience 
as  well  as  towards  that  which  falls  within  it.  I  am 
well  aware  that  this  is  not  an  easy  thing — that  to 
determine  the  exact  relations  of  human  and  Divine  in 
the  Gospels  is  a  task  at  once  difficult,  delicate,  and 
responsible.  I  am  far  from  thinking  that  the  last 
word  has  yet  been  said  by  anyone;  and  I  distinctly 
recognize  that  writers  from  whom  I  differ  very  widely 
may  yet  be  really  suggestive  and  helpful.  But  at  the 
same  time  I  very  much  hope  that  we  shall  hold  our 
ground  in  reference  to  them ;  I  very  much  hope  that 
we  shall  not  model  our  beliefs  on  the  pattern  of 
Encyclopcsdia  Biblica. 

There  is  an  important  warning  of  Dr.  Hort's: 
'  Criticism  is  not  dangerous  except  when,  as  in  so 
much  Christian  criticism,  it  is  merely  the  tool  for 
reaching  a  result  not  itself  believed  on  that  ground 
but  on  the  ground  of  speculative  postulates'  {Hiilsean 
Lectia-es,  p.  177).  It  is  these  'speculative  postulates' 
that  really  need  to  be  closely  cross-examined.  We  all 
have  our  postulates;  and  for  all  of  us  they  affect  the 
whole  course  of  our  reasoning ;  but  it  is  important  that 
we  should  see  exactly  what  they  are  and  where  they  are 
leading  us. 

In  the  case  of  the  writers  to  whom  I  have  been 
referring,  the  postulates  are  not  only  speculative  or 
philosophical ;  there  are  postulates  of  another  kind 
that  have  exercised  a  deeper  influence  over  their  work 
than  the  writers  perhaps  themselves  are  aware.  They 
all  start  with  the  same  kind  of  religious  ideal,  an  ideal 
which  is  the  more  powerful  because  it  is  latent   rather 


250  APPENDIX    I 

than  expressed,  taken  for  granted  rather  than  ex- 
plicitly argued.  And  this  ideal  is  rather  peculiar;  it 
is  certainly  not  common  to  all  Christians ;  I  do  not 
think  that  it  would  be  very  largely  shared  in  the 
Church  of  England. 

A  short  time  ago,  in  writing  of  Harnack's  lectures, 
I  could  not  help  remarking  that  '  there  are  three  things 
of  which  he  rarely  speaks  without  some  disparaging 
epithet.  They  are  Church,  Doctrine,  and  Worship.' 
We  might  say  the  same  thing  with  yet  greater 
emphasis  of  Wernle,  and  I  suspect  also  in  a  more 
latent  form  of  Schmiedel.  The  religious  ideal  of  all 
three  appears  to  reduce  those  three  things — Church, 
Doctrine,  and  Worship — to  an  absolute  minimum.  I 
sometimes  wonder  what  the  ideal  would  be  like  carried 
out  in  practice.  It  could  hardly  be  that  of  ordinary 
Lutheranism.  One  is  almost  inclined  to  suppose  that 
there  must  be  in  Germany  a  sort  of  professorial  religion 
which  exists  rather  in  the  air,  in  a  religious  Cloud- 
Cuckoo-Town,  and  does  not  correspond  to  that  of  any 
actual  religious  body. 

I  have  said  that  this  ideal  is  taken  for  granted  and 
not  explicitly  argued.  And  that  is  the  serious  part  of 
it;  because  the  ideal  is  constantly  being  invoked,  and 
is  constantly  affecting  the  judgment,  though  it  is 
nowhere  distinctly  stated  and  compelled  to  give  an 
account  of  itself. 

I  should  not  be  surprised  if  Harnack  and  Wernle  (1 
would  rather  not  speak  so  definitely  of  Schmiedel)  were 
under  the  impression  that  their  own  views  reflect  the 
teaching  of  the  Gospels,  and  were  even  taken  from 
them.      But  if  they  do  think  this,  I  feel  sure  that  they 


THE    POSITION    IN    I903  25  X 

are  very  much  mistaken.  The  inference  is  not  sound. 
It  is,  I  beheve,  far  too  roughly  and  inconsiderately 
drawn.  But  in  any  case,  I  have  little  doubt  that  this 
is  where  the  weak  point  in  the  argument  lies — in  the 
region  of  pre-suppositions.  It  is  the  pre-suppositions 
which  need  a  far  more  serious  testing  than  they  have 
ever  received. 

The  truth  is  that  all  these  writers  represent  a  re- 
action— and,  as  I  am  convinced,  an  excess  of  reaction 
— against  the  historical  tradition  of  the  Church.  The 
true  solution,  I  feel  sure,  is  to  be  sought  more  on 
Church  lines,  i.e.,  with  more  regard  for  historical 
continuity,  with  a  firmer  faith  that  the  Divine  guidance 
of  the  Church  throughout  all  these  centuries  has  not 
been  really,  and  even  fundamentally,  wrong. 


APPENDIX  II. 
The  Position  in  1905. 

A    Paper   read    at    the    Diocesan    Conferences   at    Chichester   and 
Taunton,  November  1905. 

I  UNDERSTAND  that  I  am  invited  to  give  a  sort  of 
report  on  the  present  position  of  New  Testament 
criticism,  more  especially  in  its  bearing  upon  the  clergy 
and  their  outlook  for  themselves  and  for  their  people. 
And  I  understand  also  that,  to  do  this  at  all  adequately, 
I  ought  not  to  confine  myself  to  this  country,  but  to 
look  abroad  to  the  Continent  and  America,  and  to  see 
what  clouds  there  are  on  the  horizon. 

There  are  clouds  upon  the  horizon — clouds  that  may 
be  fertilizing  though  they  are,  perhaps,  at  first  sight, 
disquieting.  And  it  may  be  well  for  us  to  look  at  them 
a  little  in  the  distance  before  they  come  nearer.  The 
present  state  of  things  is  one  that  was  sure  to  come 
sooner  or  later;  and,  when  it  came,  it  could  not  but 
have  a  certain  gravity.  There  are  three  stages  in  the 
history  of  criticism — not  necessarily  succeeding  each 
other  in  order  of  time — to  some  extent  going  on  con- 
ctu-rently,  but  yet  with  a  tendency  to  follow  each  other 
in  succession.  The  first  may  be  called  the  stage  of 
literary    criticism — the    stage    at    which    the    principal 

252 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  253 

questions  discussed  have  to  do  with  the  authorship, 
structure  and  composition,  and  date  of  the  New 
Testament  writings.  This  stage  may  be  said  to  be 
drawing  to  its  close.  No  doubt  it  will  go  on  more  or 
less  actively  for  some  time;  but  the  period  of  greatest 
pressure  is  in  all  probability  past.  The  second  stage  is 
that  of  historical  criticism.  This  is  at  present  in  full 
course ;  and  it  has  advanced  to  a  point  at  which  it  is 
really  passing  into  the  third  stage,  which  may  be  des- 
cribed as  that  of  ultimate  problems.  It  is  because  these 
questions  are  coming  to  the  front  with  some  insistence 
that  I  have  characterized  the  situation  as  presenting  a 
certain  gravity. 

The  group  of  literary  questions  relating  to  the  New 
Testament  has  had  the  greatest  amount  of  work  done 
upon  it,  and  it  would  seem  to  be  coming  to  at  least 
a  provisional  conclusion.  Some  of  my  hearers  may 
remember  Harnack's  famous  preface  to  his  elaborate 
work  on  the  Chronology  of  Early  Christian  Literature, 
written  {i.e.  the  preface)  in  1896.  The  main  point  in 
that  preface  was  that  the  interest  in  purely  literary 
questions  affecting  the  New  Testament  might  be 
expected  to  decline,  because  it  was  coming  to  be  agreed 
that — broadly  speaking  and  upon  the  whole — Christian 
tradition  was  right.  The  attitude  of  suspicion  which 
had  marked  so  much  New  Testament  criticism  since 
Baur,  was  seen  to  be  unreasonable.  On  the  whole,  the 
early  Christian  writings  had  stood  the  tests  apphed  to 
them.  It  is  interesting  to  think  that  probably  the 
turning-point  in  this  long  controversy  was  the  searching 
examination  by  oiu:  own  Bishop  Lightfoot,  and  by  Zahn 
in  Germany,  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Ignatian  Letters. 


254  APPENDIX    II 

Harnack  himself  considered  only  one  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Books  to  be  in  the  strict  sense  '  pseudonymous ' 
{i.e.  put  forward  under  an  assumed  name),  the  Second 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  It  is  right  to  say  that,  in  giving 
this  general  verdict,  there  were  other  books  the  genuine- 
ness of  which  Harnack  took  with  some  qualification — 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse.  But  his  point  was  that 
there  was  no  book  (except  2  St.  Peter)  the  tradition  as 
to  which  had  not  some  substantial  ground.  I  am  not, 
of  course,  quoting  Harnack's  opinion  as  final;  I  only 
take  it  as  summing  up  what  an  eminent  scholar 
believed  to  be  the  general  tendency  of  expert  opinion 
at  the  time. 

Nine  years  have  elapsed  since  Harnack  wrote  to  this 
effect,  and  in  the  main  his  forecast  has  been  made  good. 
There  has  been  some  rather  sharp  controversy,  not  as 
yet  brought  to  an  end,  about  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The 
points  that  Harnack  treated  as  somewhat  doubtful 
remain  somewhat  doubtful  still.  But  on  the  whole  the 
tendency,  as  he  described  it,  has  been  maintained. 
Extravagant  theories — I  am  speaking,  be  it  re- 
membered, of  literary  theories — are  on  all  hands  being 
discarded.  The  extreme  Dutch  school  is  losing  its 
hold  in  Holland  itself,  and  sober  views  generally  prevail. 
The  experience  of  the  past  has  by  this  time  taught  so 
much  that  I  do  not  anticipate  that  this  state  of  things 
will  be  greatly  altered. 

Perhaps  I  ought  at  this  point  to  say  something  about 
two  novelties  of  method  recently  advocated  by  Professor 
Cheyne  {Bible  Problems,  1904).  He  bids  us  be  prepared 
for  a  new  textual  criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  for 


\ 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  255 

which  he  appeals  especially  to  the  writings  of  Mr.  F.  C. 
Conybeare.  As  yet  this  criticism  has  been  put  forward 
tentatively  and  sporadically,  rather  in  regard  to  parti- 
cular readings  than  upon  a  general  survey  of  principles. 
A  typical  example  was  examined  by  Dr.  Chase  in  the 
July  number  of  the  Journal  of  Theological  Studies 
('The  Lord's  command  to  Baptize,'  Mt  2819).  The 
familiar  reading  of  this  verse  is  questioned  on  grounds 
which  Dr.  Chase  shows  to  be  wholly  insuflficient,  and 
I  quite  agree  with  him.  I  ought  to  warn  you  that 
this  newer  textual  criticism  does  not  at  all  correspond 
to  that  which  is  at  the  present  time  most  in  favoiu: 
among  oiu:  classical  scholars.  It  does  not  turn  upon 
the  weighing  of  external  authorities.  The  external 
authorities,  rich  and  abundant  as  they  are,  are  not 
really  weighed.  There  is  no  attempt  to  reconstruct  the 
history  of  readings.  A  very  slight  amount  of  external 
evidence  is  held  to  be  enough,  if  the  reading  which  it 
attests,  or  seems  to  attest,  deviates  from  the  current 
tradition.  Some  of  the  more  important  readings  con- 
tended for  have  no  MS  authority  at  all,  but  rest  entirely 
upon  patristic  quotations,  perhaps  only  in  a  single  writer. 
I  must  needs  think  that  this  kind  of  foundation  is 
most  precarious. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  Dr.  Cheyne,  coming  to  the 
New  Testament  from  the  Old,  should  find  himself 
attracted  by  this  method.  I  do  not  wish  to  express 
any  opinion  as  to  his  own  treatment  of  the  text  of  the 
Old  Testament.  I  am  no  Hebraist;  and  to  form  an 
estimate  of  Hebrew  readings  is  beyond  my  competence. 
I  know  that  there  have  been  scholars,  like  Bentley,  en- 
dowed with  a  gift  which  almost  amounts  to  divination. 


256  APPENDIX    II 

Of  course,  the  vast  majority,  even  of  Bentley's  readings, 
were  uncalled  for,  and  certainly  wrong.  We  are  told 
that  *  it  was  his  forte  to  make  rough  places  smooth, 
his  foible  to  make  smooth  places  rough'  (J ebb,  Bentley, 
p.  190).  His  Paradise  Lost  is  a  warning.  I  have  often 
wondered  how  far  the  readings  advocated  in  the  Old 
Testament  are  really  Bentleyan,  in  the  good  sense. 
But  I  cannot  help  seeing  that  there  is  a  strongly  defined 
difference  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New. 
In  the  case  of  the  Old  Testament  there  is  an  interval  of 
many  centuries  between  the  oldest  extant  Hebrew  MSS 
and  the  dates  at  which  the  books  were  composed. 
Granting  that  we  can  push  back  the  beginnings  of  the 
Massoretic  text  to  the  first  half  of  the  second  century, 
and  granting  that  the  transmission  of  the  text  has  been 
comparatively  uniform  from  that  time  onwards,  the 
interval  still  remains  wide ;  and  we  know  that  within 
this  interval  the  texts  were  exposed  to  great  vicissitudes 
and  were  copied  with  great  freedom.  A  comparison  of 
the  Septuagint  with  the  Hebrew,  or  such  facts  as  the 
state  of  the  Alphabetical  Psalms,  for  instance,  are  proof 
that  the  text  has  undergone  considerable  depravation. 
I  can,  therefore,  entirely  follow  such  a  cautious  treat- 
ment of  the  text  as  that  in  Dr.  Driver's  Parallel  Psalter. 
I  can  even  go  ftuther,  and  see  that  beyond  this  there 
is  room  for  a  certain  amount  of  conjecture;  though  it 
is  important  that  we  should  know  when  we  are  guess- 
ing, and  still  more  when  we  are  building  up  one  guess 
on  the  top  of  another.^ 

1  Dr.  F.  G.  Kenyon,  at  the  end  of  an  interesting  paper  on  the 
bearing  upon  textual  criticism  of  recent  discoveries  of  early  Greek 
papyri,  writes  as  follows:    'It  cannot    be  denied    that  in   general 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  257 

But  the  difference  is  great  when  we  pass  over  to  the 
New  Testament.  There  we  have  MSS,  both  Greek 
and  Latin,  going  back  to  the  fourth  century;  we  have 
versions,  Hke  the  Latin  and  Sjrriac,  going  back  to  the 
second;  we  have  patristic  quotations  which  begin  to 
be  copious  by  the  end  of  the  second  century.  The 
lines  of  descent  that  are  drawn  to  readings  attested  by 
these  various  authorities  take  us  up  very  near  to  the 
autographs  themselves.  In  these  conditions  the  place 
left  for  conjecture  must  be  very  small,  and,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  in  the  .New  Testament  the  textual  critic  hardly 
feels  the  need  of  conjecture,  and  if  he  exercises  at  all, 
does  so  very  sparingly.  I  have  no  doubt  that  in  this 
he  is  right,  and  that  the  attempts  that  are  being  made 
to  draw  him  into  other  paths  are  at  once  superfluous  and 
misleading. 

The  other  method  which  Dr.  Cheyne  commends  is 
based  upon  a  comparison  of  the  mythology  of  non- 
Christian  religions.  The  examples  given  under  this 
head  fall  into  two  classes. 

I.  It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  figures  of  speech 
employed  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  have 
their  history,  and  that  history  carries  us  back  some- 
times into  the  field  of  mythology.  A  verse  like  Is  529 
'Art  thou  not  it  that  cut  Rahab  in  pieces,  that 
pierced  the  dragon?'  has  its  connections  both  forwards 

the  papyri  do  not  support  the  conjectures  of  modern  scholars. 
When  they  do  the  variations  have  generally  been  quite  small ;  in 
no  case,  it  may  safely  be  said,  has  any  sweeping  change  been 
justified  by  the  papyri.  .  .  .  The  chances  against  successful 
divination  are  great ;  and,  even  if  a  critic  should  chance  to  be 
right,  it  is  hardly  possible  to  demonstrate  his  success '  {^Proceed- 
ings of  the  British  Academy,  i    166). 

17 


258  APPENDIX    II 

and  backwards.  I  can  well  believe  that  the  '  dragon ' 
of  Rev.  1 23-  4.  7  may  belong  to  the  same  group  of  con- 
ceptions, and  I  would  not  deny  that  it  may  ultimately 
have  affinities  with  the  Babylonian  Tiatnat  (the  chaos- 
dragon).  My  feeling  about  such  things  is  very  much 
as  when  one  looks  out  the  etymology  of  a  word  in  the 
dictionary.  If  one  goes  back  far  enough,  one  may  find 
that  it  is  connected  with  a  Sanscrit  root ;  the  connection 
is  real,  and  the  history  may  be  continuous,  though  it 
will  not  throw  very  much  light  upon  the  modem  use. 
In  like  manner  these  mythological  parallels  may  help 
us  a  little,  but  not  much.  At  most  they  only  affect  the 
embroidery,  so  to  speak,  of  the  Biblical  conception. 

2.  There  are  other  examples  which  are  of  more  im- 
portance than  this — such,  for  instance,  as  those  which 
are  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Virgin  Birth.  Dr.  Cheyne, 
I  observe,  treats  some  of  these  as  relevant  and  others 
as  not  relevant.  And  it  is,  no  doubt,  desirable  that 
each  should  be  examined  upon  its  own  merits.  What  I 
would  chiefly  deprecate  is  the  assumption  that  the 
existence  of  these  analogies  justifies  us  in  dismissing 
at  once  the  whole  class  of  phenomena  to  which  they 
belong.  We  are  learning  by  degrees  to  think  of 
V  Christianity,  not  as  something  entirely  isolated  in  the 
history  of  the  world,  but  as  the  climax  and  crown  of 
other  religions.  We  are  indeed  coming  round  by  a 
strange  circuit,  and  with  a  different  set  of  categories, 
to  a  view  which  presents  many  points  of  contact  with 
that  of  such  ancient  Christian  thinkers  as  Justin  and 
Clement  of  Alexandria.  Justin  held  that  there  were 
seeds  of  the  Divine  Word  -diffused  among  the  pagan 
religions.     These  religions  contained  elements  of  truth 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  259 

which  had  been  corrupted  and  perverted  by  the  activity 
of  demons.  We,  too,  recognize  that  there  have  been 
evil  influences  at  work  as  well  as  good.  We  must 
think  of  the  whole  system  of  things  as  adapted  to 
imperfect,  and  not  perfect,  beings.  But  over  all  a 
Divine  providence  reigns,  and  nothing  is  exempt  from 
its  operation.  Instead  of  simply  dismissing  phenomena 
to  which  we  seem  to  have  grown  superior,  it  is  better 
to  ask  ourselves  the  question,  what  was  God's  purpose 
in  permitting  them;  what  place  did  they  bear  in  the 
whole  economy  of  things?  There  is  a  truth  in  the 
assumption  that  exceptional  lives  must  have  begun  in 
an  exceptional  way.  And  if  this  truth  has  sometimes 
been  expressed  in  forms  very  different  from  the  Christian, 
we  must  take  the  world-process  as  a  whole;  and  we  y^ 
must  judge  it  by  its  end  and  not  by  its  beginnings.  We 
must  look  not  so  much  at  its  rudiments  as  at  its 
culmination;  or,  rather,  we  should  look  at  its  rudi-  j 
ments  in  the  light  of  its  culmination.  History  derives 
a  new  meaning  when  we  think  of  it  as  issuing  in  the 
Incarnation. 

I  prefer  to  rest — and  I  believe  that  we  may  well  rest 
— in  general  considerations  such  as  these.  There  is 
a  point  beyond  which  curiosity  cannot  profitably  be 
carried.  More  tangible  results  are  to  be  obtained  from 
an  examination  of  the  main  narrative  of  the  Gospels 
and  Acts.  This  is  the  proper  field  of  historical  criticism. 
And  in  this  field  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  much 
has  been  gained.  Here,  too,  as  well  as  in  the  field  of  . 
literary  criticism,  there  has  been  a  very  real  reaction.  \ 
The  wholesale  scepticism  of  the  times  of  Strauss  and 
Baur   has   come   to   an   end.     The   study   of   the   New 


26o  APPENDIX    II 

Testament  has  shared  in  the  improved  knowledge  of 
antiquity  in  general.  The  actors  in  the  history  are 
treated  more  as  living  men  and  living  women.  The 
surroundings  among  which  they  moved  are  more  fully 
understood.  A  sustained  endeavour  has  been  made  to 
follow  sympathetically  the  processes  of  their  thought. 
On  all  hands  there  has  been  an  effort  to  penetrate 
through  fonnulce  learnt  by  rote  to  inner  realities.  The 
note  of  a  higher  sincerity  runs  through  the  teaching 
of  our  time.  The  broad  basis,  so  to  speak,  of  early 
Christian  history  is  being  more  securely  laid;  extrava- 
gances are  being  pruned  away,  and  erratic  experiments 
dropped. 

It  is  really  in  regard  to  what  I  have  called  ultimate 
problems,  the  highest  questions  arising  out  of  the 
history,  that  the  stress  is  being  felt  at  present.  It  is 
being  felt  in  England.  There  has  been  a  good  deal  of 
discussion  amongst  us  about  the  real  significance,  more 
particularly  of  two  clauses  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  But 
what  with  us  has  been  desultory,  on  the  Continent — and 
especially  in  Germany — has  been  more  systematic.  And 
it  is  to  this  movement  of  criticism  in  Germany  that  I 
consider  it  my  duty  to  direct  your  attention. 

Perhaps  some  surprise  may  be  felt  that  I  should  give 
precedence  to  this  over  the  French  movement,  associated 
with  the  name  of  the  Abbe  Loisy.  The  knowledge  of 
French  is  more  widespread  in  this  country  than  the 
knowledge  of  German,  and  it  is  probable  that  M.  Loisy's 
books  have  been  read  by  many  of  the  clergy,  and  have 
made  some  impression.  For  the  internal  history  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  his  work  is  no  doubt  of  great  signifi- 
cance.    Also    on    the    theory    of    development    and    the 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  261 

course  of  Church  history  there  is  much  to  be  learnt 
from  him.  But  his  Bibhcal  criticism  overshoots  the 
mark  too  far  to  be  really  important.  Besides,  difficult 
as  it  would  be  for  most  of  us  to  combine  his  critical 
views  with  his  views  on  doctrine,  we  must  recognize 
the  fact  that  in  doctrine  he  is  not  an  innovator. 

Really  the  German  factor  is  the  most  important.  \ 
What  Germany  is  saying  to-day,  many  circles  in  Europe  ' 
and  America  will  be  saying  to-morrow.  And  there  are  { 
special  features  to  attract  our  attention  in  what  is  going  ' 
on  in  Germany  at  the  present  time. 

We  might  say  that  since  the  beginning  of  the  new 
century  a  change  has  come  over  the  method  of  German 
theology.  It  had  been  prepared  for  before  that  date, 
but  in  these  recent  years  it  has  become  more  pro- 
nounced. 

The  leading  characteristic  is  that,  instead  of  being 
highly  technical  and  elaborate,  as  we  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  see  it,  it  has  of  late  become  much  more  '' 
popular.  It  has  definitely  laid  itself  out  to  appeal  to 
the  people.  And  it  has  acquired  in  a  marked  degree 
the  popular  qualities  of  directness, ,  force,  and  vividness 
of  presentation. 

Another  comparatively  new  characteristic  is  the  ten- 
dency to  combined  enterprises.  The  German  professor 
of  the  past,  as  a  rule,  stood  by  himself  and  played  for 
his  own  hand;  but  we  now  see  strong  groups,  especi- 
ally of  the  younger  professors,  uniting  together  in 
popular  publications.  I  do  not  refer  only  to  the 
increase  in  the  number  of  excellently  organized 
magazines,  such  as  the  Theologische  Rundschau^  but  I 
have  in  mind  more  particularly — (i)  A  series  of  popular 


262  APPENDIX    II 

tracts  known  as  the  Religions- geschichtliche  Volksbiicher, 
or  '  Tracts  on  Religious  History,'  edited  by  Schiele  of 
Marburg;  and  (2)  a  new  translation,  with  introductions 
and  commentaries,  also  addressed  to  the  general  public, 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  under  the  editor- 
ship of  Johannes  Weiss,  the  son  of  the  well-known 
Professor  Bernhard  Weiss  of  Berlin.  Both  these  series 
must  be  described  as  very  good  in  their  kind.  Johannes 
Weiss  is  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  rising  young  professors. 
He  has  among  his  colleagues  Julicher,  whose  Introduc- 
tiofi  to  the  New  Testament  has  been  translated  into 
English  by  Miss  Janet  Ward,  and  Bousset,  editor  of  the 
Rundschau,  who  takes  the  tract  on  'Jesus'  in  the 
other  series;  that  on  the  'Sources  for  the  Life  of  Jesus' 
is  by  Professor  Paul  Wernle  of  Basel,  whose  Begin- 
nings of  Christianity  has  also  been  translated  into 
English  among  the  publications  of  the  Theological 
Translation  Fund  (Williams  &  Norgate).  Not  mixed 
up  in  these  joint  undertakings  is  Professor  Freiherr 
Hermann  von  Soden  of  Berlin,  who  has  lately  brought 
out  two  considerable  pamphlets — one  on  the  Writings 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  other  on  the  Leading 
Proble7ns  of  the  Life  of  Christ.  These  pamphlets  are 
very  similar  in  character  to  the  works  of  which  I  have 
just  been  speaking,  and  have  the  same  general  object. 
Along  with  them  may  be  mentioned  the  three  Lives  of 
Christ,  by  O.  Holtzmann  (translated),  P.  W.  Schmidt 
and  Rudolf  Otto.» 

Now  there  are  two  common  properties  to  be  noticed 
v/    in  all  this  literature.     The  first  is  its  moderation,  from 

1  I  should  like  also  to  refer  to  a  valuable  constructive  essay  by 
Deissman  in  Beitrage.   zuy  Weitercntnncklung  der  ehristl.  Ri'ligion. 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  263 

the  point  of  view  of  literary  criticism.  It  may  be  said 
generally  to  represent  the  standpoint  taken  up  by 
Harnack  in  his  preface,  to  which  I  have  referred — that  is 
to  say,  it  (or,  rather,  much  of  it)  treats  all  the  Pauline 
Epistles  as  genuine  except  the  Pastorals,  and  these  it 
regards  as  worked  up  from  Pauline  materials.  The 
other  fact  to  be  noticed  is  that  on  the  most  important 
and  central  points  of  all — the  Divine  Person  of  our  Lord 
— the  writers  cut  themselves  adrift  from  the  universal 
verdict  of  the  Chvuch  and  from  traditional  Christianity. 
They  make  no  attack  upon  the  Creeds,  but  they  deliber- 
ately ignore  them,  and  in  one  or  two  places  where  this 
most  important  question  would  naturally  come  up,  they 
in  set  terms  deny  what  the  Creeds  affirm.  As  a  rule, 
the  central  doctrine  of  all  is  not  so  much  contested  as 
quietly  put  aside.  The  constructive  view  of  primitive 
Christianity  is  built  up  without  it. 

It  is  difficult  to  describe  the  attitude  of  these  writers 
with  perfect  justice.  In  the  main  it  is  not  aggressive. 
Where  it  is  aggressive — as,  no  doubt,  it  is  strongly  in 
the  case  of  Wernle — the  attack  is  aimed  not  against  the 
Gospels  or  their  contents,  but  against  the  formulation 
of  Church  doctrine.  There  is  much  impatience  of  this 
all  round,  but  in  regard  to  our  Lord  Himself  the  attitude 
is  wholly  reverent.  Indeed,  I  began  by  asking  myself 
whether  it  was  not  possible  that  the  negative  expres- 
sions that  are  occasionally  met  with  might  not  be, 
perhaps,  only  a  strong  assertion  of  our  Lord's  complete 
humanity.  I  am  afraid  that  in  the  instances  that  I 
have  in  mind  there  is  something  more  than  this.  Still, 
even  in  the  writers  in  whom  they  occur  they  are  not  at 
aU  prominent,  and  there  are  some  writers  in  whom  they 


264  APPENDIX    II 

do  not  occur  at  all.  It  is  common  to  the  whole  school 
to  reject  the  ideas  of  a  miraculous  Birth  or  a  miraculous 
Resurrection,  But,  apart  from  this,  there  is  in  greater 
or  less  degree  what  we  may  call,  perhaps,  an  open  side 
in  the  conception  of  the  Person  of  our  Lord;  a  side,  I 
mean,  that  is  not  bounded  by  a  hard-and-fast  line  of 
negation,  but  that  does  lie  open  in  the  direction  of  the 
Divine.  One  of  the  best  points  is,  that  the  sense  of 
wonder  is  still  retained.  There  is  the  feeling  that  there 
is  something — the  writers  do  not  attempt  to  say  what 
— that  cannot  be  measured  by  ordinary  standards.  It 
might  perhaps  be  said  that  the  general  position  is  like 
that  which  we  associate  with  the  better  Unitarianism. 

It  will  be  understood  that  the  negative  result,  as  far 
as  it  goes,  could  only  be  obtained  by  throwing  over  not 
merely  the  unanimous  judgment  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
but  all  real  authority  of  such  Apostles  as  St.  Paul  and 
St.  John.  For  the  writers  of  whom  I  am  speaking  it 
may  be  said  that  practically  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
authority  of  any  kind.  There  may  be,  and  there  is,  a 
great  deal  of  very  genuine  admiration,  but  this  does 
not  necessarily  imply  belief.  We  may  say  briefly  that 
the  data  worked  up  in  a  constructive  sense  are  derived 
entirely  from  the  synoptical  portions  of  the  first  three 
Gospels  (of  course,  excluding  the  first  two  chapters 
of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke)  and  from  the  ideas  as 
to  what  is  historically  probable  current  now  in  the 
twentieth  century. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  position  is  really  an  extension 
of  that  taken  up  in  Harnack's  famous  lectures.  It  is 
the  views  there  expressed  pushed  to  their  logical 
conclusion,  with  the  negatives  in  some   cases    inserted 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  265 

which  Harnack  did  not  insert.  Harnack,  you  will 
remember,  professed  to  take  in  St.  Paul  and  St.  John 
in  his  estimate  of  what  was  really  essential  in  Christian- 
ity; but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  never  did  so,  or  did 
not  do  so  at  all  adequately. 

This  alone  must  surely  be  regarded  as  a  serious 
defect.  An  adequate  estimate  of  Christianity  cannot 
be  formed  in  this  way,  just  from  the  common  material 
of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  To  suppose  that  it  is  possible 
to  leave  out  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  is  in  itself  an 
immense  assumption.  It  is  an  assumption  so  immense 
that  I  only  do  not  like  to  lay  stress  upon  it  still  more, 
because  it  seems  to  me  that  the  writers  of  whom  I  have 
been  speaking  have  not  themselves  arrived  at  clear 
ideas  about  it.  They  must  realize  that  this  is,  on  the 
very  threshold,  a  difficulty  with  which  they  will  have  to 
reckon.  And  then,  it  is  only  the  first  of  their  difficulties, 
just  as  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  are  the  first  links  in 
the  chain  of  Christian  thought  and  Christian  history. 
That  which  purports  to  be  in  any  sense  an  estimate  of 
Christianity  must  deal  with  it  as  a  whole,  and  cannot 
be  allowed  to  stop  short  at  what  is  really  only,  as  it 
were,  its  alphabet. 

Apart  from  this,  when  we  come  to  close  quarters 
with  the  theory,  we  see  that  even  if  we  could  grant 
the  data  on  which  it  rests,  those  data  would  not  be 
satisfied.  I  will  return  to  this  point  before  I  have 
done. 

I  have  no  doubt  you  will  think  that  from  a  theory 
such  as  I  have  described,  it  cannot  be  possible  for  you 
to  draw  for  yourselves  much  in  the  way  of  encourage- 
ment or  reassurance.      You  will  think  that   it   belongs 


266  APPENDIX    II 

I  to  the  general  pessimism  in  which  the  present  outlook 
I  may  seem  to  be  involved.  I  suppose  that  we  most  of 
\  us  in  this  country  have  our  moments  of  pessimism ; 
the  Americans  are  the  only  confirmed  optimists  with 
whom  I  am  acquainted,  and  that  is  one  of  the  reasons 
why  it  is  good  for  us  to  come  in  contact  with  them. 
And  yet  I  cannot  but  think  that  the  pessimistic 
inference  would  be  wrong,  and  that  we  shall  see  it  to 
be  wrong  when  we  recover  our  balance.  I  believe  that 
after  all  there  is  a  hopeful  side  to  the  state  of  things 
that  we  are  contemplating. 

In  the  first  place,  you  will  think  it  a  small  mercy  and 
little  enough  to  be  thankful  for;  and  yet  I  confess  that 
I  am  thankful  when  I  call  to  mind  the  fact  that  this 
latest  phase  of  criticism — the  last  stage  of  a  process 
that  has  been  going  on  for  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years — should  leave  us  so  much  as  it  does.  The 
furnace  has  certainly  been  heated  seven  times  over,  and 
Q  yet  this  group  of  facts,  the  common  matter  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  remains  substantially  unscathed. 
Of  course  it  too  has  been  questioned,  and  it  is  being 
questioned  still  in  some  quarters,  but  not  by  a  sane 
criticism  or  a  criticism  really  founded  upon  knowledge. 
The  criticism  of  which  I  have  been  speaking — that  of 
von  Soden  and  Johannes  Weiss  and  Bousset — is  sane, 
and  it  is  founded  upon  knowledge.  It  seems  to  be  safe 
to  say  that  what  these  men  do  not  question  will  never 
;  be  questioned  with  success.  Doubts  may  be  raised, 
but  they  will  never  permanently  hold  their  ground. 
We  have,  then,  I  cannot  but  think,  in  the  criticism 
of  these  men  an  irreducible  minimum.  And  that 
minimum,    I    must    needs    think,    is    an    Archimedean 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  267 

point;  grant  us  so  much,  and  we  shall  recover  what 
ought  to  be  recovered  in  time. 

That  is  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  first  hopeful  sign ; 
and  the  second  is  another  aspect,  or  particular  illustra- 
tion, of  the  first.  What  is  now  left  us,  we  may  be  sure 
is  built  upon  the  solid  rock;  the  gates  of  Hades  itself 
will  not  prevail  against  it.  But  what  does  this  rescued 
matter  contain  ?  It  contains  two  things  which  I  believe 
will  be  found  to  be  the  key  to  all  the  rest.  The 
scholars  to  whom  I  have  been  referring  are  agreed — or, 
if  they  are  not  yet  all  quite  agreed,  they  are  bound  to 
become  so  in  the  long-run — (i)  That  our  Lord  really 
believed  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  (2)  that  He 
also  believed  Himself  to  be  in  a  unique  sense  Sonr  of 
God.  There  may  be  dispute  over  what  we  mean  by 
'  unique  sense.'  It  is  allowed  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  drew  a  clear  distinction  between  himself  and 
all  the  children  of  men.  That  is  the  foundation-stone 
of  the  creeds.     Grant  us  that,  and  the  rest  will  follow. 

These  two  concessions  are  my  second  ground  of 
hope.  They  are  axioms  which  I  conceive  bar  the 
way  against  any  further  fall.  The  Christian  faith  can, 
I  believe,  be  reconstructed  out  of  them.  My  third 
ground  of  hope  is  one  that  will  perhaps  surprise  you. 
I  have  had  so  much  to  criticise  in  the  writers  I  have 
mentioned  by  name  that  you  will  hardly  expect  me  to 
end  by  pronouncing  a  eulogy  upon  them.  But  it  would 
not  be  candid  in  me  not  to  do  so.  For  one  thing,  the 
writings  of  these  men  in  Germany  mark  a  reaction  in 
favour  of  religion.  The  position  there  is  distinctly  better 
than  it  was  some  fifteen  years  ago.  For  another  thing, 
it  is    true    the    three   writers,   von   Soden,    Bousset,   and 


268  APPENDIX    II 

Johannes  Weiss,  have  all  in  the  course  of  their  papers 
said  things  that  I  regard  as  nothing  less  than  admir- 
able. I  very  much  doubt  whether  we  have  any- 
thing so  admirable  in  English.  Occasional  passages 
may,  perhaps,  be  found  in  Newman  which  cover  some 
of  the  points  to  which  I  am  about  to  refer,  but  I  greatly 
doubt  if  he  or  any  other  English  writer  has  collected  them 
altogether  in  such  a  well-balanced  whole.  I  have  in 
view  the  portraiture — the  human  portraiture  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  All  three  writers  have  said  excellent 
things  about  this.  I.  will  only  quote  from  one,  Baron 
von  Soden.  I  will  venture  to  quote  from  him  at  some 
length,  because  it  seems  to  me  that  to  do  full  justice  he 
should  be  quoted  at  some  length;  and  you  shall  judge 
for  yourselves. 

He  is  arguing  against  the  view  of  Bemhard  Weiss, 
to  which  I  believe  that  there  is  something  parallel  in 
Bishop  Gore's  Banipton  Lectures  (see  pp.  1 68-1 71),  that 
the  personality  of  our  Lord  is  so  universal  that  we  are 
not  to  look  for  individual  traits  in  it.  Von  Soden  calls 
this  Docetism;  and  he  asserts  that,  on  the  contrary, 
the  portrait  of  Christ  has  marked  individual  features. 
I  am  not  sure  that  the  two  views  are  really  so  opposed 
as  they  may  seem;  but  we  will  hear  what  von  Soden 
has  to  say  first.  We  must  make  allowance  for  the 
point  of  view;  if  we  were  writing  ourselves,  our 
language  would  not  be  quite  the  same;  and  yet  it  need 
not  be  very  different,  because  we  too  believe  that  our 
Lord  was  very  Man : — 

*  Jesus  is  of  a  fiery  temperament,  which  is  yet  at 
the  same  time  gentle,  which  can  be  patient  and  wait 
but  at  the  decisive  moment  strikes  and  does  not  spare. 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  269 

He  sees  things  just  as  they  are.  In  His  clear  eye  are 
reflected  the  quiet  pictures  of  nature  with  all  their 
charms  as  clearly  as  the  many- coloured  life  of  men,  as 
the  inexorable  relations  of  fact  with  all  their  conse- 
quences. And  yet  with  this  eye  of  the  realist,  He  can 
also  see  with  deep  insight  below  the  surface  of  things ; 
every  passing  show  becomes  to  Him  parable  {Alles 
Verg'dngliche  wird  ihm  zum  Gleichnis).  And  through 
all  that  men  do  or  leave  undone  He  reads  into  their 
hearts.  He  loves  contemplation;  quiet  is  the  home  of 
the  soul  to  which  He  constantly  resorts;  but  along 
with  this  there  goes  a  force  of  energy  that  cannot  rest, 
but  as  constantly  drives  Him  into  the  life  of  men.  His 
was  a  nature  essentially  practical.  He  saw  all  things 
in  concrete  reality.  Every  kind  of  theorizing,  abstrac- 
tion, speculation,  and  philosophy  lay  far  from  Him. 
And  yet  He  always  saw  the  particular  in  its  connection 
with  the  whole.  He  never  lost  himself  in  casuistry. 
Jesus  is  an  individualist.  His  concern  is  with  the 
single  human  soul.  And  yet  He  is  not  an  individualist. 
For  every  human  soul  is  to  Him  of  equal  value.  He 
always  has  in  view  the  whole  world  of  men  and  its 
needs.  The  leading  idea  of  His  preaching,  the  kingdom 
of  God,  is  a  social  factor.  Jesus  was  a  poet.  With 
the  eye  of  a  poet  He  looked  upon  nature,  and  observed 
the  ways  of  men.  He  had  the  plastic  skill  to  describe 
the  intricate  life  in  nature,  the  manifold  shapings  of 
destiny  in  the  life  of  men.  And  yet  He  wrote  no 
poetry;  His  mission  was  to  act  and  to  create.  The 
nature  of  Jesus  was  not  unsocial.  He  does  not  with- 
draw from  active  intercourse;  He  rather  courts  it. 
But  He  never  loses  Himself  among  men.  He  is  never 
merged  in  society.  He  is  constantly  drawn  towards 
the  loneliness  of  the  mountain,  of  the  desert,  of  night. 


270  APPENDIX    II 

The  nature  of  Jesus  was  peaceful,  and  yet  He  does  not 
shrink  from  conflict.  Indeed,  one  has  the  impression 
that  His  spirits  rose  when  the  swords  crossed  and 
flashed  in  the  play  of  battle.  He  seeks  out  His 
opponent,  and  compels  him  to  stand.  It  is  the  Prince 
of  Peace  who  says,  "  I  am  not  come  to  bring  peace, 
but  a  sword."  Jesus  was  very  tolerant  towards  men. 
He  could  understand  every  failing.  And  yet  He  was 
inexorably  strict  in  His  moral  judgment.  To  the  man 
who  thought  himself  right  when  he  was  really  wrong 
He  showed  no  mercy. 

'  He  shapes  His  own  world  spontaneously,  altogether 
from  within  outwards,  in  a  way  that  is  in  the  highest 
sense  original.  In  the  strength  of  this  world  He 
ignores  as  of  no  account  the  ideas  and  customs  of  His 
countrymen  that  do  not  agree  with  it;  the  very  thought 
of  compromise  does  not  enter  His  mind ;  and  yet,  in 
spite  of  all  this.  He  is  full  of  piety  towards  all  that  has 
come  down  from  the  past.  He  is  no  critic.  Whatever 
is  worthless  or  untenable  drops  away  from  Him,  as  it 
were  of  itself.  This  is  His  attitude  towards  the  sacred 
Scriptures  of  His  people.  Whatever  in  them  is  transi- 
tory is  as  though  He  did  not  notice  it,  so  little  does  it 
affect  Him  or  engage  His  attention.  He  is  no  revolu- 
tionary, not  even  a  reformer.  He  left  the  world  just 
as  it  was,  and  built  up  another  of  His  own  by  its  side, 
or  on  the  top  of  it. 

'  And  this  nature  of  His  is  sound  to  the  core.  In 
spite  of  all  its  inwardness,  there  is  not  a  trace  of 
emotional  excess.  In  spite  of  all  the  intensity  of 
devotion,  there  is  nothing  of  ecstasy  or  visions. 
Apocalyptic  dreams  take  no  hold  on  His  soul.  What 
He  says  is,  as  it  were,  all  of  a  piece — it  comes  up 
spontaneously,  clear   as   crystal,   out   of  His   soul.     For 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  2/1 

Him  there  are  no  "  if s  "  and  "buts."  He  finds  at  once 
the  decisive  point.  In  His  mind  the  most  intricate 
questions  resolve  themselves  as  if  by  magic. 

'  All  His  ideas  take  their  bearing  from  those  of  His 
people,  from  their  customs,  from  their  laws.  The  con- 
ceptions that  He  finds  in  existence,  as  the  product 
of  their  development.  He  utilizes  and  makes  them  the 
vehicles  for  His  own  ideas.  For  all  the  piety  with 
which  Jesus  clings  to  tradition,  for  all  the  sureness 
with  which  he  discerns  the  voice  of  God  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures  of  His  people.  He  is  not  bound  down  by  any 
authority,  not  even  that  of  Moses,  though  He  is  glad 
to  appeal  to  it,  and  that  perhaps  not  only  for  the  sake 
of  His  opponents. 

'  We  may  see  from  many  of  these  traits  that  in  the 
nature  of  Jesus  there  was  no  lack  of  contrasts.  But 
they  are  always  resolved  in  the  wonderful  completeness 
and  harmony  of  His  being.  The  opposites  are  always 
in  equilibrium.  Therefore  His  personality,  many-sided 
as  it  is,  is  not  complicated.  In  the  last  resort  they  are 
not  indeed  so  many  independent  qualities;  but,  strictly 
speaking,  under  the  action  of  His  human  nature  and 
its  surroundings,  they  are  just  so  many  prismatic  rays 
in  the  diamond  of  His  soul'  {^Die  wichtigsten  Fragen 
im  Leben  Jesu,  pp.  85-88). 

I  must  not  quote  any  more,  though  I  find  it  hard  to 
break  off — and  the  more  so  because  the  next  paragraph 
deals  with  the  love  of  Jesus  for  mankind,  which  com- 
pelled Him,  '  instead  of  living  in  bhssful  content  in 
Himself  and  in  His  God,  to  devote  Himself  to  the 
service  of  men  and  on  the  altar  of  that  service  to  offer 
up  His  own  soul,  His  own  peace.  His  own  Heaven.' 
And  the  next  topic  is  His  consciousness  as  Son.     You 


272  APPENDIX    II 

will  understand  the  temptation  to  reproduce  more  of 
these  paragraphs.  But  really  the  passage  that  I  have 
quoted  is  complete  in  itself.  You  will  have  observed 
that  there  is  a  single  idea  underlying  it  all — and  it  is 
this  idea  which  seems  to  me  to  make  it  so  valuable — 
viz.  the  idea  of  the  apparent  contrasts  that  are  fused 
and  harmonized  in  the  human  character  of  Christ.  As 
the  writer  truly  says,  they  are  not  really  contrasts,  but 
rather  '  prismatic  rays '  in  a  single  gem.  And  I  am 
a  little  surprised  that  he  does  not  seem  to  see  that  this 
is  a  sufficient  answer  to  his  criticism  of  Bernhard  Weiss. 
After  all,  the  unity  transcends  the  differences.  And 
what  a  transcendent  unity  it  is!  How  does  it  take 
us  up  to  the  very  heart  and  centre  of  all  that  we  call 
human !  What  in  another  would  have  been  so  many 
idiosyncrasies,  in  Him  are  sublimely  universal.  Are 
we  not  carried  down  to  the  very  bases  of  being  ?  We 
most  of  us  live,  as  it  were,  in  compartments ;  and  our 
vision  is  bounded  by  these  compartments;  but  the 
truths  that  lay  open  to  our  Lord  are  elemental  and 
eternal.  May  we  not  say  that,  if  there  was  to  be 
an  incarnation  of  the  Divine  in  human  form,  this 
and  nothing  else  would  be  the  form  that  it  would 
assume  ? 

And  then  I  will  also  ask  you  to  recall  what  was  said 
about  the  sense  of  Messiahship  and  the  filial  relation  to 
God.  It  is  allowed  that  these  are  distinct  and  deeply 
rooted  features  in  the  consciousness  of  Christ.  When 
we  give  due  weight  to  this  fact,  does  it  not  carry  us 
a  long  way  on  the  road  towards  the  Christianity  of  the 
Creeds?  And  is  not  the  portrait  that  results  as  a  whole 
marked  by  a  singular  coherence  and  consistency?     The 


THE    POSITION    IN    I905  2/3 

coherence  and  consistency  hold  good  so  long  as  we 
think  of  the  sense  of  Messiahship  and  Sonship  as  real: 
they  are  dissipated  and  lost  if  we  permit  ourselves  to 
think  of  them  as  a  delusion. 

The  last  remark,  with  which  I  will  bring  this  lengthy 
paper  to  a  close,  has  reference  to  the  author  of  the 
quotation.  Can  we  afford  to  think  of  one  who  writes 
with  so  much  insight,  and  who,  if  I  am  not  mistaken, 
helps  us  so  much  with  our  own  questionings,  as  an 
enemy?  I  hardly  think  we  can,  in  spite  of  the  diverg- 
ence which  separates  his  opinions  from  ours.  Rather, 
it  seems  to  me  that  the  problem,  the  very  grave  problem, 
which  lies  before  the  Church  of  England  at  this  moment 
is  how  to  appropriate  and  assimilate  the  really  valuable 
material  in  the  writings  of  this  author  and  his  allies 
without  relaxing  our  grasp  upon  our  own  fundamental 
beliefs. 


¥ 


Date  Due 

0  : 

W.  C^Jlfl 

"    2!7  W 

'■  3  0  ^ri 

n?l  ^  ^ '"  I 

1^1   ^..T 

Ja  9     '.^.'^ 

■la  1  n  '3? 

0  20  '4J 

^  S3  '4 

^ 

0  30   4 

1 

^                          -         ■'*-"••      ; 

MHM^ 

.Wd    .- 

N  7    '4 

I 

N  1  7  '41 

♦  .    ts-.  HV 

'Ja  i-:.i:^ 

/ 

ck  1  3 

1 

A 

/ 

